Mr. Speaker, I put some questions on the Order Paper in reference to an advertisement that has been carried out by the Royal Canadian Mint in which the word “Christmas” has been substituted with the word “giving”. I think there are many members as concerned about this as I am.
However we do have the opportunity in this place to put questions on the Order Paper, and we do that for a number of reasons. Some questions are very detailed and require more than just a 30 second response and, to be very honest, we sometimes are reluctant to bring matters like this before oral question period. We want to ask those questions that are deemed very important, that are of international importance and whatnot, and so we have the opportunity to put questions of, you might say, minor significance or less significance on the Order Paper. That is not to say that they all are, but often times they are detailed and we do demand answers to them.
The difficulty is that yesterday I submitted these questions to the Journals Branch. Mr. Speaker, I want to go through the detailed list of questions so you will get a sense of what we are asking and what it is all about.
I will from my letter to the Journals Branch yesterday:
Order Paper Question--Minister responsible for the Royal Canadian Mint
Did the Royal Canadian Mint use an advertisement changing the words of the traditional Christmas carol “The Twelve Days of Christmas”, and if so;
a) what words were used;
b) why were the words changed;
c) is it the policy of the Government of Canada to abolish government references to Christmas;
d) has the government instructed Canada Post to cease the use of Christmas postage stamps;
e) what other steps has the government taken to remove references to Christmas from its programs and publications;
f) is it the intention of the government to amend the Holidays Act to include Christmas;
g) is it the intention of the government to introduce a motion in the House of Commons to amend Standing Order 28(1) to remove the reference to “Christmas Day” as part of its modernization initiatives;
h) whose decision was it to take the “Christ” out of Christmas?
Much to my surprise, and I guess much to the surprise of many members to whom I brought this forward, some of these questions were ruled hypothetical, unacceptable and in fact the word inflammatory was used.
For example, question h), “whose decision was it to take the “Christ” out of Christmas?”, was ruled inflammatory by a clerk in the Journals office.
The reason I am bringing this again to the floor of the House of Commons is simply that we have many people employed in this place whose only job, it appears, is to block members of Parliament from doing their job. It does not involve you, Mr. Speaker, because if we go through Beauchesne's and Marleau and Montpetit, I think it is pretty obvious that the rules that I followed were the rules to which you ascribe, if you will. Those very questions would not have been ruled out of order if they had been asked in question period. That is my belief.
The reason I am saying that is, and I will quote from Marleau and Montpetit at page 441:
A written question is judged acceptable if it satisfies the general guidelines for oral questions and the restrictions provided in the rules.
It goes on to say:
A question must be coherent and concise and the subject matter must pertain to “public affairs”; “no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same”.
Mr. Speaker, I think I followed that rule.
On page 124 of the 6th edition of Beauchesne's, article 428 states very clearly:
It has been observed by a Speaker that “one need only look at citation 171 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, in which will be found numerous, and in many cases, inoperable, restrictions covering the form and content of questions. I suggest that if each and every one of these restrictions were applied in every case, very few questions would ever reach the Order Paper”.
I am quoting from the Journals of March 30, 1965, pages 1193-94. The citation the Speaker used at that time referred to a list of prohibitions. I do not want to go through those prohibitions, Mr. Speaker, because the list is very lengthy and I know that you will legitimately and for good reason cut me off.
The fact of the matter is that those questions were not out of order and they would not have been deemed out of order by you, but yet someone hidden in the bowels of this institution, in an anonymous way, in anonymity, rules against a member of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I believe they were wrong in doing that. If we want to use the rules of the House for the reasons that they are there, for the public good, if you will, to represent our constituents, to ask legitimate questions of the Government of Canada, I believe that we have to exercise a level of generosity, and I do not believe that it is fitting that someone not elected, who does not have to be accountable to their peers, as you do, Mr. Speaker, would rule in that fashion.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking you to make a very quick decision on this one. I have abided by the rules of the House, and it is very unlikely that you would rule a question like that out of order during question period. As we go through Beauchesne's and Marleau and Montpetit, if those rules do apply and we stick to those rules as best we can, I am urging you to reconsider that decision made by the clerk in your office and rule that in fact members do have the right to put questions on the Order Paper. If those questions are good enough for oral question period, they should be good enough for the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker