I would like to thank the Member for bringing the issue up. First of all, I would like to say that I thank the Members for the respect and confidence that they have in me by selecting me. I do review the unedited Hansard on a daily basis. I review the unedited Hansard, so as to make every effort to ensure that, as Speaker, I am upholding the rules and practices and being understanding of the actions of Members of this House.
In addition, I want to be sure that the chair is not, by any action or omission, bringing into question its impartiality or sound judgement. As Speaker, if I find that I have made an error in judgement or have provided the House with information that is not correct, I believe I am bound to advise the House and admit my mistakes so as to ensure that I am serving the Members to the best of my ability.
As Members will recall, yesterday during question period, the Member for Thebacha raised a question to the Minister of Finance concerning inclusion of Metis health benefits funding in the interim supply bill. The questions and supplementaries to Oral Question 428-12(7) are contained on pages 2050 to 2053. During the exchange, the chair advised the Member for Thebacha that her second supplementary question may have been hypothetical. I would like to quote my comments when I informed the Member, and I quote from page 2052 of unedited Hansard:
"Can I ask, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, if you could rephrase the question? I believe the question is hypothetical. Perhaps the question should be if the budget is approved. Can you rephrase your question?"
The point that has given me concern was the response by the Member for Thebacha to my statement on the admissibility of her second supplementary. I quote the Member's comments from page 2052 of unedited Hansard:
"I don't believe that is hypothetical. But, Mr. Speaker, I know I shouldn't question your ruling. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether or not he will consider giving Metis people reimbursement of funds for the expenses they incurred as of April 1st. Thank you."
I should note again that I asked the Member to rephrase her question, which she did, and was answered by the Minister.
I am sure the Member for Thebacha, as a former Speaker and occupant of this chair, understands that it is sometimes difficult for the Speaker to immediately comprehend procedural points and explain to an offending Member that they are out of order. As all Members are aware, the Speaker is protected against reflections on his or her actions, which is a question of privilege that is afforded the occupant of the chair. This is a long-standing practice, and I quote from Beauchesne's 6th edition, Citation 168; that:
"Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege. The actions of the Speaker cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except by way of a substantive motion."
I find that the Member for Thebacha's comments yesterday in question period were critical of my actions, and her qualification did not lessen the criticism. When I was elected as Speaker, I hoped that one of the reasons that Members voted for me was my demonstrated ability to be fair and understanding in all situations. In my term as Speaker, I was hoping and praying that there would not be reflections made on the actions I take while occupying the chair. I will not, however, spout my responsibility and it is unfortunate and not with any pleasure that I have to request the Member for Thebacha to withdraw her comments. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.