The Daily Program / Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions: allotment of questions for independent members

October 23, 2018

Debates, pp. 22745–6

On October 5, 2018, Monique Pauzé (Repentigny) rose on a question of privilege regarding the number of questions allotted to independent members during Oral Questions. Ms. Pauzé stated that, following an increase in the number of independent members from 14 to 15, they should be entitled to one additional question per week to prevent an unacceptable inequality between the rights of independent members and those of members from recognized parties.^[1]

Resolution

On October 23, 2018, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He explained that, although the modern parliamentary system developed largely around the existence of recognized political parties, the Speaker was responsible for protecting the rights of minorities in a manner that is fair and equal to all members. Recent successive Speakers have increasingly recognized independent members to the point where question period is normally overextended. He was of the view that the current allotment respects the management of time, the equitable rights of all members and the long-standing practices of the House. In the absence of any evidence that independent members were unduly impeded in fulfilling their parliamentary duties, the Speaker concluded that there was no prima facie breach of privilege. Although the issue challenged the management of the House, it was more a point of order than of privilege. Given its importance, however, he invited guidance from the House on how parliamentary business is conducted.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 5, 2018, by the hon. member for Repentigny concerning the number of questions allotted to independent members during oral questions. I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised the matter.

In speaking to her question of privilege, the member for Repentigny argued that, when the number of independent members recently increased from 14 to 15, they were entitled to have an additional question per week during question period. Without it, she claims, there is an unacceptable inequity between independent members and members from recognized parties.

While some may see this issue as simply mathematical, the hon. member for Repentigny raises a question that goes directly to the matter of how our parliamentary institutions are structured. As honourable members are aware, our modern parliamentary system has been developed largely around the existence of recognized political parties. The procedures and practices that guide much of our deliberations revolve around these recognized parties and are, in a lot of ways, the result of negotiations agreed to by them.

For example, recognized political parties have certain benefits in our proceedings that are not necessarily shared, or not to the same extent, with unrecognized parties and independent members. This is the case with respect to such matters as the order of participation in debate, the granting of opposition days, committee membership and, of course, the conduct of question period. Undeniably, these distinctions guide the speaker in exercising his duties.

Furthermore, the Parliament of Canada Act and the bylaws of the Board of Internal Economy make a clear distinction between recognized and unrecognized political parties giving them different funding.

These distinctions have not been static. They have evolved over time through changes in tradition and usage, including the rules and practices adopted by the House itself. Many of these changes are founded on the principle of supporting the fair and active participation of each member in the work of the House.

Speaker Fraser addressed the role of the Speaker in this regard, when he stated, on September 24, 1990, at page 13216 of the Debates:

I have some discretion in dealing with the rights of every person in this House who is in a minority position. I think we have a great tradition of protecting the rights of minorities, and I can assure the honourable member that the rights of minorities will be protected by the Speaker in a way that is fair and equitable for all other members.

Safeguarding the fair and equitable rights of the minority is no less a concern for the Speaker during question period. The Speaker’s interpretation of the rules, principles and practices put in place by the House itself must balance the rights and interests of both the majority and minority. This is why successive Speakers have progressively opened up the floor to independent members during question period even though the allotment of the different speaking slots under this rubric in our daily agenda has historically been determined through extensive discussions among the recognized political parties.

For instance, not so long ago, the practice was that, when time permitted, and only when time permitted, the Chair would allow an independent member to ask questions during question period. The member for Repentigny rightfully acknowledged that, in more recent years, Speakers have endeavoured to call on independent members to ask questions that roughly matched their proportion in the House.

In fact, recent successive speakers have made significant efforts to find a delicate balance in the allotment of questions between the recognized political parties and the independent members. This has been brought to a new and unprecedented level in the present Parliament. Never have independent members been recognized as much during question period.

The impact of this has been significant; the time now spent on question period has increased so that it rarely ends within the fixed time prescribed by the Standing Orders. As Speaker, I believe that adding another question, as the hon. member for Repentigny suggests, would simply aggravate the pressure on the limited number of hours at the disposal of all members.

In a ruling delivered on April 23, 2013, at page 15800 of the Debates, my predecessor had the opportunity to speak of the notion of equity when referring to the rights of members. He said:

Hence, while many members in this instance have spoken of the right to speak, the member for Langley acknowledged this inherent limitation and spoke more precisely of the equal right to speak. It is this qualifier of rights—equity—that carries great significance, and to which the Chair must [pay] close attention.

The principle of equity applies to the allotment of questions to independent members for question period. Given the 45-minute limit of question period, it is of the utmost importance that it be managed in a way that is fair and equitable to the rights of all members.

I would be remiss if I looked at this matter only through the lens of just one group of members … and their right to speak. Instead, I must manage all proceedings, including question period, effectively for the benefit of all members. It is the view of the Chair that the current allotment of 14 questions per week for independent members maintains an appropriate balance with respect to the management of time, the rights of independent members, and the longstanding practices of this House.

The Chair notes that recently, some of the time slots made available to independent members have not been used. I would therefore encourage independent members to consult table officers, who remain available to assist in any way necessary, with a view to ensuring that these opportunities are optimized for the benefit of all.

As the Chair cannot find evidence that the rights of independent members have been breached, or that they have been unduly impeded in fulfilling their parliamentary duties, there is no prima facie question of privilege in this case.

As a final note, the complaint raised through this question of privilege challenges the management and control of House business which is itself protected by privilege. In recent years, the distinction between questions of privilege and points of order [has] become somewhat blurred. This matter is more properly a point of order.

Nevertheless, the Chair realizes how important this question is for many of us. As the Speaker often looks to the House for guidance and direction, particularly for changes in how business is conducted in this place, I welcome any direction on this matter the House wishes to offer, perhaps through negotiations between the parties and independent members or by way of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I thank all honourable members for their attention in this matter.

Postscript

On May 7, 2019, during Oral Questions, Erin Weir (Regina—Lewvan) addressed a question to the Prime Minister concerning the number of questions allotted to independent members following the election of Paul Manly (Nanaimo — Ladysmith). In reply, Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) referenced the Speaker’s previous ruling of October 23, 2018, regarding the current allotment of 14 questions per week for independents.^[2]