Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding question period. I deferred this to permit the Remembrance Day motion. I thank Mr. Speaker for his indulgence in that regard. I am sure all members, who were waiting for the Remembrance Day, motion are probably even more grateful.
I rise in regard to two incidents that occurred during question period to bring them to the attention of the Chair. I quote to Mr. Speaker Citation Nos. 406 and 412 of Beauchesne's.
Citation 406 states:
A question may not be asked of a Member who is no longer a Minister, seeking information with regard to transactions during that person's term of office.
It says a little later, more particularly in No. 410:
The subject...of questions must be within the...responsibility of the Government or the individual responsibilities of Ministers.
In Citation No. 412 it states:
A question may not be asked of a Minister in another capacity, such as being responsible for a province...
I now then draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, pages 426 and 427 of Marleau and Montpetit. The title, if we go back to page 424, is “Principles and Guidelines for Oral Questions”.
Clearly, if one goes to page 426, it says, at the bottom of the page:
These two statements, along with some of the guidelines adopted by the House in 1965, are used today by the Speaker as a reference in managing the Question Period. In summary, when recognized in Question Period, a Member should...
ask a question that is within the administrative responsibility of the government or the individual Minister addressed.
Then I draw the attention of Mr. Speaker, to page 427, at approximately the middle of the page, where it says that the questions must not:
--address a Minister's former portfolio or any other presumed functions, such as party or regional political responsibilities...
During question period I indicated, and perhaps one would refer to this as heckling, to Mr. Speaker on two occasions that in fact these rules were breached by those asking questions. An hon. member asked a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration regarding his previous portfolio as secretary of state for another department, not secretary of state within the same department.
The second question was asked of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. A question, repeated in a supplementary question, was asked of the minister regarding his responsibilities as the political minister for Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker will know of course that it is impossible for a minister to answer these questions with any detail because it offends the rules of this House. What I draw to the attention of Mr. Speaker is that those questions, in my opinion, should have been interrupted and not have been permitted, when someone seeks this kind of information in a way that is against the rules of the House. Otherwise we have the very unfortunate situation, such as we had today. When a minister does not reply, the next questioner says that the minister refused, as if the minister has any choice but to respect the rules of this honourable chamber. Then we have the curious situation where someone who offends the rules by asking an improper question is not punished and the minister, who was prevented from answering the question because of the same rules, is denigrated publicly for having failed to do so.
That is not right. I draw this to the attention of the Chair. Mr. Speaker might want to review the blues or the informal Hansard , as we sometimes refer to it, with a view to stopping this practice in the future so that ministers are not subjected to this kind of intimidation.