Good afternoon. Before we proceed with Ministers' statements, I would like to give two rulings that came from last week's Assembly meetings.
Speaker's Ruling
On June 25, on page 2756 of the unedited transcript, the Minister of Education, under the item "Returns to Oral Questions" provided what he stated was a further return to Question O579-12(2). In making his return, the Minister of Education indicated that he had another return, and I quote, "Mr. Speaker, I have another return, which is somewhat unusual," and then proceeded to give his return. I indicated after the return was concluded that this concept of a further return was something not addressed by the rules.
In reviewing the original question, which was asked by Mr. Arvaluk on June 19, the Minister of Education did answer the question, and in his response indicated the following, and I quote, "I will get back to the Member with detailed information as to how the assessment is being conducted." I am aware that the past practice of some Ministers is to give a partial answer to a question and offer to provide further information. This has been done in two ways: by a return to oral question and by letter directly to the Member concerned. The problem that arises is that the official House records indicate that the question has been answered, as the Minister did not take it as notice. Taking a question as notice indicates that the Minister will provide a return at a later date.
I do not wish to curtail the flow of information, but would like the official records of the House to reflect the disposition of an oral question. The concept of a further return to an oral question should be addressed, so I would like to inform the House that I have referred this matter to the standing committee on rules, procedures and privileges to consider while they are undertaking their comprehensive review.
Speaker's Ruling
I have a second ruling. The honourable Member for Thebacha, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, raised a point of order on June 26 and it is contained on page 2879 of the unedited transcript. The Member, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, indicated she was not challenging the decision made earlier by the Deputy Speaker, but was seeking clarification from the Minister of Education during question period.
In reviewing the transcripts that lead up to the Deputy Speaker indicating that the matter was sub judice -- that means a matter that is before the courts -- the honourable Member's questions prior to the Chair's remarks on sub judice were in order. The questions did not become out of order when the Member for Thebacha had determined from the Minister of Education that, in fact, the matter was under appeal. It was at that point the Chair did indicate that any further questions directly related to the court case would be out of order.
Therefore, the Chair acted at the precise moment the House was advised that the matter was under appeal, thus ruling out any further questions. I find that the Member for Thebacha did not have a point of order, and, in fact, it was Mrs. Marie Jewell's questions that assisted the Chair in ruling on sub judice. I note that at that point, no further directly-related questions on the court case were posed. Thank you.
We can now move to orders of the day for Monday, June 29, 1992. Item 2, Ministers' statements. Mr. Pollard.