Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I may have put forth my question under that context, and it could be indicated as sub-judice, but I believe that I have made my point publicly. Thank you.

This is always a difficult area of interpretation. Just how far does the limitation on questions or discussion, about subjects in front of judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, go? It is one that there is not a distinct dividing line, between what is acceptable, and what is not?

Could I ask Members to try to be as prudent as possible when something is in front of a judicial or quasi-judicial board? Thank you.

Point of privilege, Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Point Of Privilege

Mr. Speaker, I do not, by any means, intend to challenge your ruling, and I totally respect that. Maybe you can give me some direction, or assistance, in respect to putting forth my concern in this House. I asked the question back on September 9, in regard to whether the department has bothered to develop standards for this process, in regard to the board of inquiry? At the time, the Minister stated that it was totally independent, away from government. Now actions are being shown otherwise. It seems that I cannot find a process is this House, to determine what is independent, or what can we ask regarding the process of procedures that have been adopted, and decided upon. Thank you.

I think this particular subject is very important, it is one that caused difficulty before, I will allow some debate on this particular subject, and I would like to hear opposing views, on this particular matter. Ms. Cournoyea.

Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable Member is asking a question, I do not think it is easy to determine right now, but I think we are all concerned. Perhaps you as Speaker, or the House, can guide us on what is permissible. Perhaps tomorrow you can let us know what parameters we can operate under. I think that is the only

question that is being asked. I do not think that I can answer that question, either, but I believe it should be given some deliberation so at least we have a guideline. Thank you.

Any other Members who would like to comment on this? I think it is an important issue, and the rules allow the Speaker to listen to arguments from Members. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as I understand the honourable Member's question, she is asking about the first step that has been taken under the Medical Profession Act's Board of Inquiry process.

I believe she is asking about the service of notice within two weeks before the inquiry begins, which is really, as I understand it, the first step in the board of inquiry process itself.

Therefore, I would only wish to comment that I think your ruling on the appropriateness of this question, and the application of the sub-judice rule, will be an important precedent. The inquiry has begun with this process, and if questions are allowed about the first step of the process of the actual inquiry in this House, then you may be permitting, by precedent, questions to continue on a daily basis about the inquiry itself.

So I do not wish to argue, but I am sure all Members would agree that this House should not be seen to be a prejudice thing; an independent process that has been set up by an act of this Legislature. So I think it is an important question, and one which may not be urgent, but that it be answered today. Perhaps I might recommend, that it is something that could be considered, and I wish a ruling could be given on due reflection. Thank you.

Would the honourable Member like to comment on this? Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to approach this request as clearly as possible, so if I could ask for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to get an answer to my question. I do know the House needs accurate information

I would like to quote from September 9 unedited transcript, in reference to my question, in which I asked the Minister of Health about the procedures used by the Medical Board of Inquiries, established under the Medical Profession Act. I would respectfully draw your attention to the fact that my question would not be referring to the substance of the matter before such a body, and I asked him a question which certainly would be within the realm of his knowledge, since he had set up the board of inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, section 26 of the Act provided that a Board of Inquiry under the Medical Profession Act, must with all due dispatch, conduct a hearing to investigate matters referred to it. Can the Minister advise this House whether his department has bothered to develop standards for this process?

At the time, Mr. Speaker, the Minister responded that the board of inquiry was an independent procedure which would prescribe review the same way that doctors and other professionals discipline themselves. It is not something that is geared by the government, the Minister of the department, and Mr. Speaker, the answer the Minister gave to the Member's question is no, the department has not provided direction or standards about the time frame of the board of inquiry, that will be up to the President of the board of inquiry, Doctor Earle Covert, so I was told on September 9.

I found out yesterday that, contrary to what the Minister told me, has happened. I would like to ask the Minister, where is his department's role; why is his department's role being involved in this matter, when he indicated to this House that it is to be totally independent, not steered by government, the Minister of the department. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Jewell. Any other comments? If not, Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for being out of the House for a moment. I think, Mr. Speaker, the question that was put forward was based on the matter of who was actually issuing, in particular, a summons, and who was responsible for that particular matter.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I can agree with you that the matter of the sub-judice convention is a matter that is strictly applied when the matter is dealing with criminal issues. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this particular matter, this is a civil proceeding, and it has not yet been forwarded for criminal investigation, and criminal proceeding.

I think, as in most cases, I can agree with you, and apply, at least on my part, the rule of the sub-judice convention to those particular matters. But generally speaking, it has been the practice in most jurisdictions, and in fact, in our own House, that we have been quite liberal about the application of the sub-judice convention when the matters are not being dealt with in the civil proceeding. But it is in comment, always on the part of the Members, to be cognizant of the sub-judice convention, and it is only for the Speaker to, what you might say, be involved in a minimal context, because freedom of speech itself is significant, and it is an important factor in the proceedings of this House.

I would not in any way challenge your ability to arbitrate in the final analysis the decision and the rules and the proceedings of this House, but I would urge you, in your own deliberations, to recognize the liberal interpretation normally given to the sub-judice convention, when applying it to the proceedings of Legislature, or House of Commons, because if you apply it too narrowly, then the freedom of speech, and the ability of Members' to speak on issues, I think, can be subject to severe restraint.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, in your own deliberations, to view the question in the context that it was put, and that was to ask who was actually responsible for issuing the documentation, to actually insure that the proceedings were to take place.

But again, Mr. Speaker, I wanted you to be aware there are no settled practices that have been developed in relation to civil cases, and the Act should be as the convention has been applied in some cases, but not in others, and I ask you, the convention, generally, in civil cases, does not apply until a matter normally has reached the trial stage. So I just wanted you to be aware of that, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Nerysoo. Any other comments from Members? Mrs. Jewell.

Mr. Speaker, I will try once more to restate my question.

I would like to request the Minister to clarify, in this House, the department's role ...

Excuse me, Mrs. Jewell. I do not think this is probably the correct time to do it. I am asking for a debate on

the point of privilege. After I make a ruling, then it may be a more appropriate time. Mrs. Jewell.

Just in regards to the debate on the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I guess in looking at the whole basis for the sub-judice convention, is that what happens in this House, it should not jeopardize a person's right to a fair hearing before the courts, and I fully agree with that, and respect it.

I do not believe that there is any way the question that I posed today can be considered that. I would urge you to consider in your deliberation, that in no point in time did I indicate in the preamble of my question, that it was my intention to refer to the substance of any matter before the board.

My question was to refer to the procedures used, and the process used, whereas I was told last week posing this question, or two weeks ago, that this was an independent process, but documents given to me have told me otherwise. This is the type of context that I would also urge you to look at, as we raise this point in the House.

Thank you, Mrs. Marie-Jewell. Are there any other comments on this? If not I want to thank honourable Members for their comments, and for their views. It is a very important point, and I will take some time to deliberate it, and return to the House with my judgement on the point of privilege at the appropriate time. Thank you, everybody.

Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Government Leader, if she could indicate if Delury and Associates have been given a contract by the Northwest Territories Power Corporation?

Ms. Cournoyea.

Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge.

Supplementary, Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you. Could I ask the honourable Member, the Government Leader, if she could inquire into whether or not a contract has been issued to DeLury and Associates?

Ms. Cournoyea.

Mr. Speaker, yes.

Item 5, Oral questions. Mr. Ningark.