The Daily Program / Daily Proceedings

Oral Questions: question concerning matters before committees; regarding committee proceedings and not agenda

February 12, 2008

Debates, pp. 2968-9

On February 12, 2008, Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North) rose on a point of order with respect to a question directed by Maria Minna (Beaches–East York) to the Chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East), during Oral Questions on February 8, 2008.^[1] Mr. Stanton argued that the question was out of order because it concerned the proceedings of the Committee and not its agenda or schedule.

The Speaker delivered his ruling immediately. He stated that the question was in order because it dealt with the schedule and agenda of the Committee even though the answer may not have been. He concluded by reminding the House that the Speaker cannot rule on the quality or content of replies to questions, unless they contain unparliamentary language.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The Chair certainly appreciates the diligence of the hon. Member for Simcoe North in this matter. Having anticipated that this might be his point of order, I have the text of the question before me.

The hon. Member for Beaches–East York in her question asked this:

Does the chairperson plan an early meeting of the Committee to consider how the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages misled the Committee this week during her appearance regarding equality?

In other words, the question did, in my view, deal with the schedule and agenda of the Committee, which is a question that is permitted. The question did ask, is there going to be an early meeting of the Committee? It did go on to ask about the business of the Committee, but the agenda is properly part of the question. The question was, is there going to be an early meeting of the Committee to consider this item on the agenda? In my view, that kind of question is in order.

The answer did not have much to do with the question, but Speakers are stuck on answers, as the hon. Member knows. I am sure he is very sympathetic to the position of the Chair, because frequently we have questions that are asked and a response is given that does not answer the question and in fact has nothing to do with the question. But it is not for the Speaker to decide whether those answers are in order or not in the circumstances.

The provisions in Marleau and Montpetit deal with questions. The hon. Member will notice that they do not tend to deal with answers. Some have suggested that Question Period in the House is called Question Period, not answer period, because the response does not necessarily answer the question that is asked.

In this case I agree that the response from the Chairperson of the Committee was not an answer, using the usual expression of answer, to the question that was asked. It was a response, but it had relatively little to do with the question.

I believe the question met the exigencies of our procedure in that it did deal with the schedule. It asked when the Committee might meet and about the agenda for that meeting. In my view, therefore, it was in order. It may have had other undertones in it that Speakers would prefer not to have in there, but the fact is, in my view, that it did deal with those two items and therefore I allowed the question.

I can only sympathize with the hon. Member when we deal with answers. As I have said, Speakers have very little to say over what constitutes the response to a question. If the response is not an answer to the question, I cannot rule the response out of order unless unparliamentary language is used in the response, which would of course be out of order and which he has not suggested occurred in this case. I sympathize, but there we will leave that one.

I appreciate the Member’s diligence in checking this out and raising the matter.