Madam Speaker: I have two rulings for the House.
During Question Period on December 11, 1997, I took under advisement, in order to review Hansard, two points of order.
The first one concerned an answer given by the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) to a question asked by the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson). The point of order raised by the House leader for the official opposition alleged that the minister was not responding to the matter raised and was provoking debate.
There was indeed a point of order. The Minister of Justice should have, in responding to the question, complied with the requirements of Beauchesne Citation 417; that is, he should have responded to the matter raised and should not have provoked debate.
The second point of order was related to the first one. It also was raised by the official opposition House leader and alleged that comments made by the honourable Minister of Justice in speaking to the initial point of order were not relevant to the point of order.
There was a point of order. The honourable minister should have confined himself to addressing the point of order which was about what he had stated in reply to a question; rather the minister made comment on what other members in the House had allegedly said about the larger issue under consideration. I would encourage all members when speaking to a point of order to limit their contributions to the specific breach of the rule or contravention of procedure or practice.
On March 13, 1998, during Question Period the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) raised a point of order asking that the Speaker direct the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) to answer the question posed by the member for Wolseley. I took the matter under advisement to review Hansard in detail with regard to the question posed and the answer given.
Having examined the Hansard record, I must rule that the honourable member for Wolseley did not have a point of order. The member asked a question about transition time provided to school boards; the minister's answer pointed out that school boards were already aware of the formula and the applicable time lines. What existed, in my opinion, was not a point of order; it was a dispute over the facts.