The Daily Program / Daily Proceedings

Oral Questions: question concerning matters before committees; answered by a Minister

November 2, 2011

Debates, pp. 2860–1

On October 26, 2011, during Oral Questions, Sean Casey (Charlottetown) addressed a question to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs concerning an in camera meeting being held when the committee had been scheduled to hear from witnesses at a public meeting. Steven Blaney (Minister of Veterans Affairs) answered on behalf of the Committee Chair. After Oral Questions, Ralph Goodale (Wascana) rose on a point of order. In his opinion, the Chair of the committee should have answered Mr. Casey’s question because it addressed committee business and did not pertain to the responsibility of the Government or the Minister. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) stated that since only the Minister rose to respond, the Speaker responded appropriately in recognizing him, in accordance with established practice. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1]

Resolution

The Speaker delivered his ruling on November 2, 2011. He recognized that questions about the schedule or agenda of committee business should be directed to and answered by committee Chairs. However, he reminded Members of the role of the Speaker during Oral Questions, including that the Speaker is not responsible for the quality or content of replies and cannot compel a response. He added that the Speaker’s role includes recognizing Members who rise to reply. As the Chair and Vice-Chair of the committee had not risen, the Speaker explained that he had recognized the only person who had risen – in this case, the Minister. The Speaker invited Members to continue directing their questions to those who are properly accountable for answering them. He closed by recommending that Members address the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs if they wanted the rules and procedures that guide the Chair to be changed.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on October 26, 2011, by the Member for Wascana regarding who ought to be recognized to answer questions posed during Question Period to the Chair of a standing committee.

I would like to thank the Member for having raised this matter, as well as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, and the members for Bourassa and Charlottetown for their interventions.

In raising this matter, the member for Wascana stated that the question posed by the Member for Charlottetown related to the work of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which is under the purview of the committee Chair rather than under the responsibility of the Government or the Minister. Noting that committees were masters of their own affairs, he sought clarifica­tion about whether it was permissible for Ministers to respond to questions on behalf of Chairs of committees and suggested that this approach would be a profound change in our long-held traditions with respect to the proper functioning of committees.

The leader of the Government in the House quoted from a ruling on a similar matter given on February 8, 2008, at pages 2836 and 2837 of Debates, in order to demonstrate that, in recognizing the only individual rising to answer, the Speaker had acted in accordance with the practice established and articulated by Speaker Milliken.

The House Leader of the Official Opposition reminded the House that members of the Official Opposition chaired several standing committees and suggested that it would be inappropriate for Ministers to answer questions on behalf of committee Chairs who were from the Official Opposition.

As Members know, three kinds of questions may be posed by Members during Question Period. First, questions concerning the administrative responsibility of the Government, or an individual Minister, may be directed to the ministry collectively. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 509 notes:

Questions, although customarily addressed to specific Ministers, are directed to the Ministry as a whole. It is the prerogative of the government to designate which Minister responds to which question, and the Speaker has no authority to compel a particular Minister to respond.

Second are questions that concern matters of financial or administrative policy affecting the House itself. These are not directed to the Speaker but rather to members of the Board of Internal Economy designated by the Board to respond to them.

Finally, an extremely narrow category of questions may be directed to Chairs or Vice-Chairs of committees. These must be phrased in a very specific way and can seek limited information only. In O’Brien and Bosc at page 506, it states:

Questions seeking information about the schedule and agenda of committees may be directed to Chairs of committees. Questions to the Ministry or to a committee Chair concerning the proceedings or work of a committee, including its order of reference, may not be raised. Thus, for example, a question would be disallowed if it dealt with a vote in committee, with the attendance or testimony of Members at a committee meeting, or with the content of a committee report. When a question has been asked about a committee’s proceedings, Speakers have encouraged Members to rephrase their questions.

House practices with regard to Oral Questions are established in this fashion so that the appropriate persons can be held accountable to the House, be it a Minister for the executive, a committee Chair for a committee or the designated member of the Board of Internal Economy for House administration matters. These categories of questions reflect the principle of distinct legislative and executive spheres of responsibility and accountability, which is at the very heart of our system of parliamentary government. That this very distinction between the executive and legislative may somehow be jeopardized by a Minister answering a question directed to a committee Chair is the crux of the matter before us. This is no doubt why the member for Wascana asked:

Is it now permissible in the House for Ministers to effectively muzzle the Chairs of committees and impose on committees the views of the government?

Drawing from O’Brien and Bosc on pages 508 to 510, I would now like to remind the House of the role of the Speaker with respect to replies to Oral Questions. It states that: there are no explicit rules which govern the form or content of replies to Oral Questions; the Speaker has no authority to compel a response; the Speaker is not responsible for the quality or content of replies to questions; and finally, the Speaker ensures that replies are brief, within the time agreed to by the House, deal with the subject matter raised, and phrased so as not to provoke disorder in the House, that is that they adhere to the dictates of order, decorum and parliamentary language.

Coupled with this, of course, is the Speaker’s role in recognizing Members who rise to reply to Oral Questions, particularly as there is an expectation on the part of Members asking the questions that they receive, at a minimum, a response. As Speaker Milliken explained in the ruling referred to by the Government House leader, in recognizing someone to answer a question, the Speaker “is to take a look at those who are standing to answer and choose who is going to answer ... ” and “ ... when no one else rises, it is reasonable to expect an answer to a question...”. Simply put, it is not for the Speaker to judge who possesses which information and, thus, who might be able to provide the information being sought. As Speaker Milliken put it in reference to the events of February 2008:

... no one else rose. The Member who posed the question clearly wanted an answer and got one, or at least got a response.

While there may be concerns about the Minister rising to reply to a question properly posed to the Chair of a standing committee, in this particular instance, the Chair did not rise to respond, nor did the other Vice-Chair of the committee. It is therefore perhaps not completely unexpected that the Minister would rise to offer a response related to witnesses from his department, and that the Chair would recognize him in the absence of any other Member rising. Nothing in this incident should be interpreted to mean that Members should not continue to direct their questions to those who are properly accountable for answering them. It is also entirely reasonable to expect that those to whom questions are directed, in this case the Chair or Vice-Chair of a standing committee, would automatically be recognized by the Chair to respond, provided they are, of course, rising.

The House will understand that the dynamic nature of Question Period is such that the Chair is frequently faced with split-second decisions on who to recognize. This is as true now as it was for Speaker Milliken. As always, the Chair is aware that each circumstance must be evaluated on its own merits. Were the House to recommend a different way of proceeding, the Chair would of course adapt to that. As my predecessor suggested, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is well placed to consider this matter and, if it sees fit, to propose recommendations to help guide the Chair in cases such as this.

I thank all Members for their attention.