Madam Speaker: I have a ruling for the House.

I am ruling on a point of order taken under advisement on October 3, 1996, during Question Period. The opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) raised a point of order about the answer by the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) to a question posed by the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). In raising the point of order, the opposition House leader put forward the argument that the answer contravened Beauchesne Citation 417 because the minister was engaging in debate and also that, in giving an answer, the minister suggested the member for St. Johns had made aspersions about the Schulman inquiry.

I have reviewed the Hansard record and am ruling that the opposition House leader did indeed have a point of order. In response to the question, the minister did contravene Citation 417 and did provoke debate.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the ruling, just by way of clarification, Madam Speaker, I am wondering if, given the fact that the context of the ruling was also the fact that the minister made accusations to the member for St. Johns that that member had made aspersions about the Schulman inquiry, as to whether it might be appropriate as part of the ruling for the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) to withdraw those comments since obviously they were out of order and uncalled for.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On the same point of order, I clearly listened to you read your ruling. I have read the ruling. It refers nothing to the matter which the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has raised. It deals with the question of whether or not there was a contravention of Beauchesne 417 in the matter of provoking debate, so, Madam Speaker, he is out of order.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order subsequently raised after the ruling by the honourable member for Thompson, I sincerely hope the honourable member for Thompson was not challenging the ruling of the Chair, but indeed if he was, there is a process in place for that. I think the ruling was very succinct to the point of order raised.

Mr. Ashton: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, I did not raise--the previous matter raised was a matter of clarification, which is standard practice in the House involving the Speaker's ruling. Many times clarifications of the ruling have been requested.

If I had wished to challenge the Speaker, surely I would have done so, but I was simply asking if the ruling--which did reference the comments that were made to the member for St. Johns--also involves some remedy, not only the fact that those were clearly in violation of 417, but that there would be a withdrawal.

I want to make it very clear that I did not challenge your ruling, and if I were to do so, I would have done so in an appropriate way which would be by a vote in this House. I did not challenge your ruling; I was simply asking for a matter of clarification.

* (1430)

Madam Speaker: On the subsequent point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I sincerely believe that the original point of order raised and accordingly ruled on today does indeed contain the point of order initially raised by the honourable member for Thompson.