The Daily Program / Daily Proceedings

Oral Questions: relevance of responses; allegation of bias

September 24, 2014

Debates, p. 7771

On September 23, 2014, Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Official Opposition), dissatisfied with the answers he was receiving from Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs) during Oral Questions, asked the Speaker to enforce the rules on the relevance of responses. He made reference to the Speaker’s lack of neutrality.^[1]

On September 24, 2014, before proceeding with Oral Questions, the Speaker made a statement. He specified that his role was to speak to the best interests of the entire parliamentary institution, that he could exercise only those powers conferred upon him by the House, and that it is not the Chair’s role to decide whether the content of a response is in fact an answer. The Speaker emphasized that the rules of repetition and relevance do not apply to Oral Questions and reminded all Members that the onus is on them to raise the quality of both questions and answers. He also made reference to the tradition whereby reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker could be taken as a breach of privilege and punished accordingly.

Statement of the Chair

The Speaker: Before we proceed to Question Period, the Chair wishes to make a brief statement.

The office of Speaker is an ancient one, and there are many procedural authorities in this country and abroad that describe the Speaker’s role. Our own tome, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, [Second Edition], encapsulates my role, as follows, at page 307:

The Speaker is the servant, neither of any part of the House nor of any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and serves the best interests of the House as distilled over many generations in its practices.

Despite the considerable authority of the office, the Speaker may exercise only those powers conferred upon him or her by the House, within the limits established by the House itself.

With respect to Question Period proceedings, contrary to what some Members and others may believe, this means adhering to practices that have evolved over a broad span of time and that have consistently been upheld by successive Speakers.

By way of example, on October 28, 2010, Debates page 5505, Speaker Milliken said:

As all of the hon. Members know, the Speaker has no authority over the content of answers given by a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary in response to a question asked during Question Period.

The issue came up again on December 1, 2010, Debates page 6677, and on that occasion Speaker Milliken stated:

The Minister, in his response, may not have answered the question, but it is not the role of the Chair to decide whether a response is an answer or not to the question. Indeed, the Chair has no authority to rule an answer out of order unless the answer contains unparliamentary remarks or a personal attack on some other member.

It is not for the Chair to decide whether the content of a response is in fact an answer. As we have heard many times, that is why it is called Question Period, not answer period.

In my own ruling regarding Question Period proceedings, delivered on January 28, 2014, I stated very clearly:

There has been much discussion recently about the nature of answers during Question Period, with calls for the Speaker to somehow intervene, citing practices in other countries ... 

Each parliament has its own traditions. Successive Speakers in our House have maintained our tradition of not intervening in respect of answers to questions, and I do not intend to change that. For me to deviate from this long-standing practice would require an invitation from the House.

To date, the House has not seen fit to alter our practices or to give directions to the Chair in that regard.

That being said, I have no doubt that Canadians expect Members to elevate the tone and substance of Question Period exchanges. As your Speaker, I hope the House can rise to that challenge.

To be absolutely clear on another point, any suggestion that the rules of repetition and relevance apply to Question Period is wrong and ignores the long list of Speakers’ rulings to the contrary.

Another of our time-honoured traditions is that of respect for the office of Speaker. O’Brien and Bosc, at [pages 313 and 615], states that:

Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker—an allegation of bias, for example—could be taken by the House as [breaches] of privilege and punished accordingly.

I wish to conclude with an appeal to Members on all sides. Needless to say, the kind of unsavoury language or expression that we heard yesterday does little to assist the Chair in managing Question Period proceedings, and I urge all Members to be judicious in the expressions they choose to use.

I also ask all Members to heed my request of last January 28, when I asked Members:

... to consider how the House can improve things so that observers can at least agree that Question Period presents an exchange of views and provides at least some information. The onus is on all Members to raise the quality of both questions and answers.

Postscript

On September 26, 2014, Mr. Calandra apologized to the House for his behaviour during Oral Questions on September 23, 2014.^[2]