Good afternoon.
Speaker's Ruling
Before proceeding to Ministers' statements, I would like to take this opportunity to deliver my ruling on the points of order raised by Mr. Gargan and Mrs. Marie-Jewell.
Both points of order centred around responses that were given by the Honourable Stephen Kakfwi in his capacity as Minister of Justice. Mrs. Marie-Jewell asked, "I would like to ask the Minister if he would review his corrections division to give assurance to the public, in this particular case, that justice is seen to be done by the people of the Northwest Territories." Mr. Kakfwi responded on page 2543 of unedited Hansard for March 15, 1993 that "My view is that there are two Members of this Legislature who have taken a particular interest in this inmate. I understand that there is a perception on their part that there is not enough punishment for the offence which was committed. I do not see it as a great public concern judging from the lack of interest in other quarters." Mr. Kakfwi subsequently stated on page 2544 in reply to a supplementary question by Mrs. Marie-Jewell that, "There seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion, since I do not see anyone calling for a public inquiry asking for this gross injustice to be dealt with. I do not see anyone asking for some specific focus to be dealt with. I do not agree with the Member that she is the sole spokesperson for what the public thinks should be done in any case." Mr. Gargan took exception to these remarks as imputing hidden motives to his prior questioning on this issue. Similarly, Mrs. Marie-Jewell took exception to these remarks on the basis that the Minister appeared to implicitly suggest that she was not representing the concerns of her constituents.
I have reviewed the rules of this Legislature, our customs and precedents, and Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th edition, in considering this issue. As both points of order were raised on the same issue, I will deal with both points of order in my ruling today.
I can find no expressed authority which would substantiate that either Member has raised a valid point of order. The Minister of Justice did not explicitly state that either Member had improper motives when questioning the Minister on this matter. Therefore, I rule that neither Mr. Gargan nor Mrs. Marie-Jewell have a point of order.
However, in reviewing unedited Hansard, I noted that the Minister, in responding to the Member's questions, made a series of statements that could be construed to be his personal value judgments. The status and authority of the position of Minister carries with it an extra burden of responsibility. A Minister's response to questions should be factual and be confined to stating matters of government policy. It is understood that when Ministers are answering questions, the opinions that they state are those of the government and not their personal opinions. Statements made by a Minister, that could be taken as personal opinions, may be viewed as provocative and may escalate the acrimony of a debate.
Finally, all Members of this House are representatives of their constituents. As representatives, we must assume in this House that they speak for, and on behalf of, their constituents at all times. Questions, whether asked by one or by many Members, should be responded to with equal respect. I urge all Members to be respectful of the legitimate views expressed by other Members in this House. Thank you.
Item 2, Ministers' statements. Mr. Todd.