Debates of Feb. 18th, 2000

Points Of Order

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, under our rules, when a letter is quoted the actual document must be tabled, whatever the document is. That has historically been the case. Over the last couple of weeks I have tabled letters in unilingual French or in unilingual English in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair has the immense advantage of having at hand a copy of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , edited by Mr. Marleau and Mr. Montpetit. I refer hon. members to page 372 of the work, which states:

All documents tabled in the House by a Minister or, as the case may be, by a Parliamentary Secretary, whether during a sitting or deposited with the Clerk, are required to be presented in both official languages.

That requirement is there. If the House gives its consent, the letter that is in one language could be tabled. Is there consent for the tabling of this document at this time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a large difference between a minister bringing a document into the House to be tabled as part of the normal course of the minister's business and the minister quoting from a piece of correspondence that she happens to have received from someone, be it a constituent, a member of parliament or someone else, in only one language. It is an entirely different situation, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I think that your ruling perhaps applies more to official documents being brought in by ministers rather than something being quoted by the minister on a cursory basis.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would not normally engage in debate on a matter of this kind. However, I would also refer the member to page 518 of the same M and M work, which deals with the tabling of documents. It states:

Any document quoted by a Minister in debate or in response to a question during Question Period must be tabled.

The end of the paragraph states:

All documents tabled in the House by a Minister are required to be tabled in both official languages.

And there are various citations at the bottom.

The minister has indicated that she is prepared to have the document translated and will then table the document. Since there is no consent to table it without that translation, I am afraid we are going to have to wait for that eventuality, and I so rule.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to find out from you what criteria guided you in your decision to allow a question to be put to a minister.

Prior to this week, we put a question to the Minister for International Trade on the Department of Human Resources Development issue, a question the Chair denied us.

Today a question was put to the Minister of Human Resources Development and was answered by the Minister for Veterans Affairs. Is there some reason why one minister can answer in a matter belonging to another and another minister cannot?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that your interpretation of the rule, as I saw it being dispensed, is quite correct. There are two different concepts here. The first is that one may not ask a question of a previous minister or a minister who is no longer responsible. That is in citation 410 of Beauchesne's.

However, it is also equally true that the government itself can decide that any minister can answer a question. That is not the same proposition; it is a totally different one. The two of them are very different and the Speaker was quite correct in giving a different decision in both cases because they are different propositions.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on the same matter. In other words, if I understand correctly, one minister is not obliged to answer in a matter that is not his responsibility. We agree on that.

We are told that a minister cannot do that. Yet today we saw another minister answer a question when he should not have been allowed to do so. There is a problem somewhere. If a minister does not have the right to answer, then he cannot answer.

However, the government can decide that another minister will reply. This means that the government could say the minister does not have to answer, or does not have the right to do so unless authorized by the government House leader. Otherwise, how can we explain that another minister was allowed to answer, a minister who is not responsible for the issue, but who is a clever parliamentarian, who can give a good show in the House and who can save the minister who has problems answering questions?

In other words, the Minister for International Trade does not have to answer, but if he wanted to do so, and had the courage to do it, he could. But he does not have that courage, as evidenced by the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs came to the rescue of the Minister of Human Resources Development on an issue for which he is not responsible.

One cannot, in one instance, not have the right to do something and do it just the same and, in another instance, not have the right to do it and not do it. This does not make sense. I would like to know why the Chair prevents the minister from answering before the minister has even decided whether he will answer or hide behind the fact that he does not have to answer. I understand the principle, but it is not for the Chair to prevent the minister from answering right off the bat, since others just did it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Once again, I refer to the book by Marleau and Montpetit, not only to promote sales but also because I believe it contains some very relevant passages with respect to the matter raised by the Bloc Quebecois leader and the whip.

I believe that the point made by the government House leader is correct. Let me quote from page 432 of the book:

Questions, although customarily addressed to specific Ministers, are directed to the Ministry as a whole. It is the prerogative of the government to designate which Minister responds to which question. The Prime Minister (or the Deputy Prime Minister or any other minister acting on behalf of the Prime Minister) may respond to any or all questions posed during Question Period. Only one Minister may respond to a question, and it need not be the one to whom the question is addressed who actually answers it.

The standing orders are very clear on this point. The Chair recognized the minister who rose to respond to the questions. That is entirely consistent with the standing orders in our new book.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very sure I understand what you have just said. I think it was very informative.

In other words, you are saying that the Minister of Veterans Affairs could respond today because the government allowed him to do so, but that the Minister for International Trade could not, because the government did not wish him to do so. It prevented him from doing so, but it could have allowed the Minister for International Trade to respond to the question had it so wished.

I know that the government finds this annoying, but that would have been possible, right? That is what you are saying?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will read the last sentence of the paragraph I began earlier:

The Speaker has no authority to compel a particular Minister to respond to a question.

That is clear. These are the standing orders, and they have been adhered to all week during Oral Question Period.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we want to clearly understand the ruling you have just brought down. You have responded to the hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois by saying that the government could very well have allowed the Minister for International Trade to respond.

Yet the question I am asking you, which takes me back to the original one, is this: What does the Chair use as a guide in deciding not to allow the opposition's question?

A little earlier this week, the Speaker decided not to recognize a question because reference was being made to a prior responsibility of the present Minister for International Trade, whereas the government could have chosen to allow the Minister for International Trade to respond. The Speaker is the one who prevented the government from making that decision.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I was not in the Chair yesterday. If there was a problem yesterday, all that I can say is that the hon. member ought to have raised it yesterday after question period.

I am not responsible for what has gone on in the House all week. I am citing the rules that apply to what happened in the House today, and I believe that is correct. Yesterday I was not here and I did not see what occurred.

I am sure that the hon. member could raise the matter with the Speaker when he is here next week. I suggest that he do so.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If this is the same point of order, I trust that it will be very brief. I do not want to waste the House's time. This is a matter that should be raised with the Speaker.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to your wise counsel is not a waste of time. I will seek it again. Do not tell me it is a waste of time to listen to you, it is informative.

Mr. Speaker, you are in fact telling us that since you are the one in the Chair today, your situation is similar to that of the minister, in that you are responsible today, and you go by the standing orders. Today is today and yesterday was yesterday. Something happened today concerning the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and I am submitting the issue to you.

We want to know how we should put our questions and we want you to tell us what approach to take, since this is your role. You are at the service of all parliamentarians. Because the question was directed to the Minister for International Trade, you are saying the Chair could deem the question to be out of order because that minister is not the one responsible.

To clarify, today the question directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development was answered by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I wonder where the logic is; at any rate, that is what happened—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry—

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Give me a moment to finish. Our question should have been worded as follows: “The question is either for the Minister of Human Resources Development, who is currently responsible, or for the Minister for International Trade, who is largely responsible for this mess”. The government would then have had the option of allowing the former minister to answer or of preventing him from doing so, as was the case today.

Did I understand correctly the conclusions you drew on this issue and your teachings to the House today?

[The Deputy Speaker]

First of all, I suggest that all hon. members read chapter 11 of the book which looks at the rules governing Oral Question Period in this House. It is very clear and very informative. I will cite another paragraph from page 433:

Members may not insist on an answer nor may a Member insist that a specific Minister respond to his or her question. A Minister's refusal to answer a question may not be questioned or treated as the subject of a point of order or question of privilege.

That is clear enough and very informative. I suggest that the hon. member and all other hon. members read chapter 11 of this excellent book, which will enlighten everyone.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois for a very, very brief comment.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to make myself even more concise than usual, I understand that the minister may refuse, as you have just repeated, but that was not the question. We want to know how the Speaker of the House may refuse, on behalf of a minister, who may or may not have had the government's permission to respond, but who still takes—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I again suggest that members read chapter 11 and ask the Speaker questions next week, if they wish.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.