The Daily Program / Daily Proceedings

Oral Questions: questions concerning matters before committees; used by Members of the opposition to comment on committee business

May 19, 2005

Debates, p. 6238

On May 19, 2005, during Oral Questions, Joe Preston (Elgin–Middlesex–London) addressed a question to Leon Benoit (Vegreville–Wainwright), Chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. He asked, with regard to the Committee’s agenda, whether Mr. Benoit would explain the refusal of Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Service) to appear before the Committee. Mr. Benoit replied.^[1] After Oral Questions, Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development) rose on a point of order. Making reference to the question asked by Mr. Preston and to another question asked by Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition) to John Williams (Edmonton–St. Albert), the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the week before,^[2] he argued that the Chair of a standing committee can reply only with respect to questions regarding the organization of the committee and its agenda. He asked that the Speaker rule on whether an abuse of the Standing Orders had occurred. Other Members also spoke to the matter.^[3]

The Speaker delivered his ruling immediately. He stated that the question asked by Mr. Preston had narrowly met the exigencies of House practice because it had dealt with the business of the Committee and that the specifications of the relevant Standing Order concerned the content of questions and not that of answers. He added that the Speaker does not enforce restrictions on answers and that the Chair of a committee, once asked an appropriate question, could talk about things other than the specifics of the question. He indicated that he would review the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition the week before and concluded that he would continue to ensure that questions of this type are clearly in order and conform to the rules.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I thank all hon. Members for their interventions on this point. The Chair very much appreciates support for the Standing Orders which the Chair is bound to enforce in the House.

Yesterday there was a question, which the Chair ruled out of order, addressed to the Member for Vegreville–Wainwright by the hon. Member for Elgin–Middlesex–London. Today, I thought there was an improvement on yesterday’s question in terms of it dealing with the business of the Committee, which, as the hon. Member for Peterborough correctly pointed out, is what the questions should be concerned about. The difficulty was that in his submission he suggested that the answers had to do the same thing.

Our Standing Orders state that the question has to concern the business of the Committee, but the Chair of the Committee, having been asked the question as Ministers tend to do, could talk about things other than the specifics of the question. I can see that the hon. Member was upset at the fact that the Committee Chair seemed to go on about subjects perhaps totally different from the one specifically raised in the question. He may have gone beyond that, but I do not think it is for the Chair to enforce that kind of restriction on answers. If I were to do so, I might cut Members’ answers short, which I know the House Leader for the Official Opposition would be appalled at.

I will refrain from that, but I will certainly continue to look at questions to ensure that they are concerning the business of the Committee. I had made that representation after the point of order was raised yesterday. I did not make a ruling because I spoke to both hon. Members who raised it and indicated my dissatisfaction with the question.

It was corrected today. It was a borderline question, but I thought it met the exigencies of our practice, which is to require that the question deal with the business of the Committee and not a question about what went on in the Committee. It is to deal with its agenda and business. I thought the question, by a narrow margin, met the exigencies of the Standing Order today. I will review the other one the Member raised with me, but I did rule yesterday’s out of order.

I appreciate the support the hon. Member for Peterborough has offered and the support of the hon. Members for Windsor–Tecumseh, Edmonton–St. Albert and Kootenay–Columbia, who all support the Chair in their efforts to ensure that the questions asked are proper in the House.