Questions / Oral Questions

Attendance of Ministers

Journals pp. 132-4

Debates pp. 1216-7

Background

At the beginning of the October 15 sitting, Mr. MacInnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond) rose on a question of privilege to complain about the difficulty of obtaining information from the Minister during Oral Questions. This was particularly true, he claimed, in view of the failure of the Government's experimental schedule for the attendance of Ministers in the House and its prepared list of Acting Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. By way of a motion, he proposed to have the entire matter referred to the Special Committee on Procedure. In an attempt to determine whether there was a prima facie case of privilege, the Speaker invited comments from the House. The Speaker then suggested some possible problems in allowing the question of privilege; a final decision was deferred until the following day.

Issue

Does dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Government during Oral Questions constitute a question of privilege?

Decision

No. There is no prima facie case of a question of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

Questions must be addressed to a Minister in relation to his or her administrative responsibility. This applies, as well, to Ministers who have acting ministerial responsibility, and this has been a common occurrence for many years. However, a Minister cannot be asked questions with respect to any other capacity, either as representative of a province or of a racial or religious group. The attendance system to which objection is taken has been in place for a few weeks and has been the subject of several points of order, but this is the first time it has been raised as a question of privilege. It can hardly be claimed, therefore, that the matter is being raised at the first opportunity. In addition, while Members have a right to ask a question, they cannot insist on an answer. Finally, the motion being proposed is really seeking to have the system of ministerial attendance during Oral Questions considered by the Special Committee on Procedure as well as other procedural changes. As such, this is a substantive motion which can only be moved after notice.

Sources cited

Debates, April 1, 1966, pp. 3755-7.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 95-6, c. 104(3), (5); pp. 153-4, c. 181(3).

Standing Orders 39(5) and 41.

References

Journals, October 15, 1968, p. 125.

Debates, October 11, 1968, pp. 1094-112; October 15, 1968, pp. 1133-41.