Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I rise on a point of order concerning oral question period of last Wednesday, December 5. I am doing so at the earliest opportunity.
Last week in a conversation with the Minister of Human Resources Development I gave her notice that I would be asking an oral question concerning the pre-Christmas problem with EI cheques that had to do with the timing and delivery of claimants' cheques during the holiday period. I did this to give the minister time to solve the problem and hopefully come back with a positive answer.
As I said, I did this following question period on Tuesday, December 4. That evening following the vote I followed it up with a letter I hand delivered to the minister in her seat. I wanted the minister to be perfectly informed of the problem with the delivery of these cheques over the holiday season. The minister admitted that it would be a problem and that she would do everything in her power to fix it.
In giving notice I was heeding the advice given to all of us at page 424 of Marleau and Montpetit. In discussing the principles for oral question period the following is stated:
The guidelines which govern the form and content of oral questions are based on convention, usage and tradition.
It continues:
There is no formal notice requirement for the posing of oral questions, although some Members, as a courtesy, inform the Minister of the question they intend to ask.
Courtesy is the key word, and that is exactly what I did. As a courtesy I gave the minister advance warning of the question on December 4.
You will therefore understand, Mr. Speaker, the frustration I experienced when on Wednesday, December 5, the hon. member for Bras D'Or--Cape Breton put my question to the minister. In his preamble to the question that was never put, the member for Bras D'Or--Cape Breton apologized to the House.
I am not blaming the member. I know he is new to this place and was under some pressure from the government to ask that question, to which he has admitted. In other words it was a planted question.
However there has been a serious breach of the conventions of the House. If opposition members are not able to give notice of questions to ministers without the risk of having our questions transmitted to the Liberal backbench for political opportunity, the practice of giving notice will fall into complete disuse. Notice to ministers will become the private preserve of government supporters for their soft questions. I often refer to them as marshmallow questions. We see this day in and day out.
I happen to think that our constituents and the public interest generally are well served when question period is used to resolve difficulties and to convey information. That is why we have it. The practice of giving notice allows ministers to play their part in the process. When that is violated it violates the trust between individual members of parliament and, believe it or not, members of the opposition and members of cabinet. That trust has to be there for the system to work. That was violated.
Unfortunately the actions of the Minister of Human Resources Development militate against the practice of giving notice. It works against the practice of giving notice. This is a shabby practice. It is a serious breach of the conventions of this place.
What has been done is finished. My only purpose in raising the matter today is to invite the Speaker to refresh the memory of the House on the usefulness of the convention of giving notice of questions.
If we are to get into a situation where members cannot give notice, then we are all diminished and the conduct of public business will be more difficult, because in all generosity that was a question I gave the minister notice on, knowing that her department is a big department and the minister does not have a good track record in understanding what is going on within that department; note the transitional jobs fund debacle and the missing billion dollars.
Recognizing that, I gave the minister notice. She violated that trust between an individual member of parliament and herself. I think the House should be reminded of that trust and of the value of letting ministers know the question in advance, especially when it is a detailed question. When they diminish that and violate that trust for political gain, the whole House suffers.