Mr. Speaker, over the past two days, a number of events have taken place in this House. Today, it is happening again.
Yesterday, referring to one of our questions to the Minister of Human Resources, the Speaker of the House commented that the question was too specific.
Earlier, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Prime Minister had told us “Your questions are too vague. We would appreciate more specific questions. Give us examples of mistakes that were made, of instances where money was misappropriated”.
We did our best, even though we still do not have access to all the lists, to find the most specific examples possible, including one, which I raised myself, involving a $5 million subsidy.
With due respect to the minister, it seems to me that $5 million is important enough an expenditure for the minister to at least look at before authorizing it.
The Speaker of the House seemed to back down on this issue and, later, he let us ask our very specific questions. Then, the minister even told a Reform member that his question was too vague and she wanted a clearer one.
You have the responsibility to tell us how my colleagues and myself must act in this House. Even today, after the minister replied that the question was too precise, too in depth, you said you agreed with her. I have not heard such comments very often in my life.
How should opposition members act to please you, Mr. Speaker? Should we ask very broad questions, so as to allow the minister to say anything, or ask very precise questions and be told they are too precise and cannot be answered?
I would like to know the rules for asking a question in a parliament such as this one. In the other one that I have known, the more precise the question, the more accurate the numbers quoted, the happier the journalists, the happier the public, and the more the Speaker would let us carry on.