Debates of Sept. 29th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Changes to Standing Orders

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Burlington for his question.

I think that it is quite clear, as my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster explained earlier, that currently, if questions are not relevant, for example, if a member asks a question about the status of the whales in the Great Lakes, which has nothing to do with the government, the Speaker has the right to stop that member. During oral question period, the Speaker has the right to cut off a question that is not relevant. I therefore do not see why we would have to provide our questions in advance to be sure that the government is able to answer them.

I would add that we already have a system for written questions in our Parliament. This has been heavily criticized in recent years because even when there are written questions we do not manage to get answers that make any sense.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I absolutely agree with today's motion. I want to thank the official opposition for giving us the opportunity to talk about something so vital to respect for Parliament. It is clear that the goal of having a respectful Parliament, as my colleague mentioned, is important.

In the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, there is a section on oral questions. Standing Order 37(1) states:

Questions on matters of urgency may, at the time specified in Standing Order 30(5), be addressed orally to Ministers of the Crown, provided however that, if in the opinion of the Speaker a question is not urgent, he or she may direct that it be placed on the Order Paper.

I mention that because I think that ties in with the power that the Speaker currently has and does not traditionally or habitually use. The Speaker has the power to stop questions; why not answers as well?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. She has been advocating for a more civil Parliament from day one. I am very pleased to have her support today.

She got to the heart of the problem. We are aware that many of the Standing Orders are not always enforced by the Speaker at this time. We understand that, and we clearly understood the Speaker's response last week. That is precisely why today we want to ask that this rule, which already exists, be enforced so that it does not become one of the many rules not really enforced by the Speaker. We do not want people to be able to continue answering when they have clearly crossed the threshold of absurdity. Responses need to be more tangible and concrete.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today's debate is on the opposition motion, sponsored by my NDP counterpart, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. He suggests that the House change Standing Order 11(2) in respect to responses given to oral questions. That is not in respect to questions, merely in respect to responses.

Question period is fundamental to our system of parliamentary government. It is democracy in action. Canada's approach to the parliamentary questioning of the government makes the House of Commons a leader in the world for accountability. Simply put, there is no similar forum in the world as openly accountable as Canada's question period. Every single day, when the House of Commons sits, the prime minister and ministers are held to account for their policies, the decisions that they make and the actions of their departments. For 45 minutes, the opposition can ask any question on any subject, without any forewarning, without any notice at all.

Question period is also a key forum for providing members of Parliament and the public with information about the government's plans and priorities. That is unlike, for example, in the U.K., a country that has played a fundamental role in our own country's parliamentary evolution. Here, ministers are not given the benefit of a formal prior notice of the questions they may be asked. I know perhaps once a week a minister might get a warning from a member opposite, but the norm is no notice at all. Instead, ministers must come to question period every day prepared only with the sound knowledge of all the workings and policies of the departments for which they are responsible, ready to answer any and all questions, those foreseen and those unexpected.

The very nature of Canada's question period ensures that the debates are always topical and relevant. We have even seen an issue arise outside the House during question period and asked at that very moment.

In the United Kingdom, for example, it is different. In Britain, members of parliament often have to give up to two weeks' written notice of the question they plan to ask a minister in question time. In the U.K., each sitting day, but never Fridays, as we have here on Fridays, only some ministers are scheduled to answer questions. This, of course, significantly limits the range of subjects on which questions can be asked on any given day to just a minority of the full range of government responsibilities. The prime minister answers questions only one day each week and most other ministers even less frequently. The minister then arrives in the chamber of the House of Commons in the U.K. supplied with a prepared answer to a question that is often outdated. Supplementaries must be tightly relevant to the question put on notice.

In Canada, however, questions cover a broad range of subjects and departments, every day, without warning. The Prime Minister and ministers must be ready. The issues of concern to Canadians change quickly, and the questions put to the Prime Minister and cabinet members change just as quickly.

Furthermore, if a member is not satisfied with the answer to an oral question, he or she can pursue the question at greater length during the adjournment proceedings, which we all affectionately call the “late show”.

I have yet to have anyone point to any country with as much accountability as our question period here in Canada.

Our neighbours to the south have no question period that allows legislators to hold the president and his cabinet accountable. There is no forum to hold the administration and Congress directly accountable.

In the United States, there is no process at all like our question period, at any time, for the president and his cabinet to be held accountable by legislators.

I next want to turn to the actual wording of the motion before us. It states:

That Standing Order 11(2) be replaced with the following: The Speaker or the Chair of Committees of the Whole, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, including during responses to oral questions, may direct the Member to discontinue his or her intervention....

This change, as I pointed out, would affect responses to oral questions but it would not touch the actual questions. This is yet another greatly cynical, one-sided proposal for the NDP. It wants to improve Parliament insofar as it helps the NDP, but not insofar as it would help the government, for example, to have more information on which to provide those answers. “Do as I say not as I do” has been the watchword for the New Democrats throughout this Parliament and here it makes yet another appearance.

Apparently, they do not want to be subject to the same rules that they want to see applied to others. The Leader of the Opposition would prefer to make question period a one-way street. He wants the rules changed to keep him from facing any tough questions or cold facts in the House about his own party's operations or policies. In reality, he wants to avoid facing any basic facts in the House, since he wants to ban repetition of answers. The facts will not change simply because an individual asks the same question over and over again.

If people watching this debate think that what is proposed is a simple fix, well, it is not. Let me quote a distinguished former speaker, Speaker Milliken, the individual who had the longest tenure in that big chair you are sitting on, Mr. Speaker.

On enforcing the concept that the NDP is proposing, Mr. Milliken told the Ottawa Citizen:

There’s nothing a speaker can do about that. ...what constitutes an answer? There’d be constant argument about it.

In fact, there would be points of order raised interminably at the end of every question period.

There has been a lot of recent commentary related to what the change is, and I will come back to the substance of today's motion in a bit, but why the change is being proposed is somewhat obscured by a recent event.

What people really need to understand about the NDP leader's motion is that it is an oversensitive reaction to efforts to hold the New Democratic Party and the Leader of the Opposition accountable on certain issues. The Leader of the Opposition wants the rules changed so that he will not have to answer hard questions or have the whole truth be known here in the House of Commons.

The Leader of the Opposition does not want to answer for the NDP misuse of House resources on inappropriate mail-outs. The Leader of the Opposition does not want to answer for the NDP inappropriate use of taxpayers' dollars in setting up unauthorized satellite offices, which, curiously enough, just happened to be at the same place that partisan NDP work was taking place.

New Democrats have been caught breaking the rules and abusing taxpayers' dollars, but most regrettably, they do not want to be held to account or for anyone to be even reminded of it, all of which is witnessed—

[David Christopherson]

You're the government.

[An hon. member]

Maybe you should keep your voice down.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. government House leader has the floor. Members will know, and one member has recognized, that other members are to listen to the presentation that is before the House, or if they have other commentary with their colleagues, they may wish to take that to the respective lobbies.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Outremont also must not want to be reminded that for almost two decades, he kept knowledge of bribe attempts to himself. The Leader of the Opposition does not want to explain to Canadians his risky high-tax schemes, like his $21-billion carbon tax that would hurt Canada's economy and kill Canadian jobs. Maybe it is that he does not want anyone to know about his employment insurance plan that would cost Canadians nearly $8 billion, or a 30% hike in EI premiums paid by hard-working Canadians.

However, I am not alone in being struck by this stark contrast between what the New Democrats proposed and how they actually behave. Let me quote from Martin Patriquin, of Maclean's magazine, from his appearance on CBC on Friday afternoon. He said that the Leader of the Opposition “...knows very well [that] being disingenuous in the House and deflecting questions. The guy practically invented it when he worked here in Quebec...it is an interesting switch of roles”. That is the take of a seasoned political observer in Quebec, where the hon. member for Outremont served in the legislature for over a decade.

Today we are going to hear a lot said by the New Democrats that everyone should be supporting this motion today because of the apology tendered in the House on Friday by my hon. friend, the member for Oak Ridges—Markham. However, that is one apology more than we have ever gotten from the leader of the NDP. We have yet to have an apology for the NDP's use of House resources for its mailings. What is more, we have likewise yet to have an apology for the NDP's use of House resources for satellite offices. It is interesting that in the discussion of those resources, we have had efforts by the NDP to pin it on the Clerk of the House of Commons and House staff. There was no apology after that.

There were other occasions. I remember when the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's was the subject of a bit of an episode with the member for Outremont. There was no “I am sorry” back then, none at all. In fact, in the incident we are talking about right now, the member for Outremont, in this House, in that very same question period, said that the Speaker was biased, which is highly inappropriate and highly inaccurate. Do we see any apology for that now? Up to this point, there has been no apology whatsoever.

In fact, I can look to an exchange of my own. When I came across the House and we exchanged words, using somewhat inappropriate language, I apologized to this House for that inappropriate language. I invited my friend to apologize for having used the exact same inappropriate parliamentary words. Did any apology ever come? No. It is not surprising.

It is a two-way street. In fact, seized with his own hyperbole, the member called the finance minister a racist this past spring. There was no apology for that. Meanwhile, his fellow Quebec provincial politician, Yves Duhaime, was on the receiving end of some defamatory comments by the Leader of the Opposition, then an opposition MNA, including some startling four-letter names, which I could never repeat in this chamber. Mr. Duhaime had to take his grievances to trial in the Superior Court of Quebec for vindication through judgment and some $95,000 in damages.

The only way he will ever apologize for anything he does that is inappropriate is if one actually gets him in front of a judge and gets the judge to referee it and settle the dispute.

I hope that perhaps sometime today we will get that apology to the Speaker for the inappropriate comments the Leader of the Opposition made about him last Tuesday.

That is not the first time he has shown a distrust of an institution that does not do as he pleases. In April 2013, the Leader of the Opposition slammed the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land. Back then, he said:

The Supreme Court has already indicated they are going to carry out their own probe, but it's a little bit like when a complaint is made against a professional's conduct. You can't have the professional investigate themselves.

With the conclusion in hand, he was not deterred from impugning motives when he said:

You won't find something you don't ask for....

It's a clear indication that the Supreme Court had no intention all along of ever dealing with this issue seriously.

Is this an insight into how the New Democrats would govern? If the Leader of the Opposition is trying to change the rules to protect himself from hearing critical questions and uncomfortable facts in opposition, we can imagine what he would do to change the rules to protect himself if he were in government. In fact, Mr. Milliken, whom I quoted earlier, told the Ottawa Citizen that he was “surprised” that the Leader of the Opposition would be raising this topic.

To wrap up, the motion put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster is flawed. It is based on motivations one is bound to question, and it is just the latest example of the “do as I say not as I do” approach of the New Democratic Party.

In closing, I move:

That this question be now put.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for anyone who thought, with the outrage that came back from Canadians from coast to coast to coast after the profound disrespect by the Conservative government in the House of Commons, or after the apology on Friday, or after the government actually was trying to answer questions in the House, that this government was actually turning over a new leaf, I think any thought of that nature has now been exposed as just idle thinking.

Obviously, the Conservative government does not intend to, in any way, be respectful to the Canadian population. The Conservatives do not intend to actually respond to what Canadians want to see, which is thoughtful questions, of course, and occasionally answers that are actually relevant to the questions that are asked.

There is so much wrong with what the government House leader just said, I do not know where start. He has been the government House leader for a long time. The pretense that somehow relevance does not apply to questions is absolutely absurd, and quite frankly, he should be ashamed of himself for even saying that in the House. He knows that questions are routinely ruled out of order by the Speaker because they are not relevant to public administration.

Putting that aside, which was the only reason he really gave for opposing this motion, what the government House leader has just said is that the Conservative government is doubling down. We will have even more absurd and irrelevant answers in the weeks to come. Government members should be ashamed of themselves.

Will the government House leader now confirm that the Conservatives will now double down and be even more disrespectful to Canadians in question periods to come?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to come to this House of Commons, which has the firmest, and as I indicated, the strongest accountability mechanism of any legislature in the world, to answer questions every day without notice. We will do so in a respectful fashion as fully as we can, more respectful, I might add, than some of the questions we hear from the opposition.

I think of questions occasionally from the member for Timmins—James Bay or his seatmate, who often in their questions seem to have preambles that are not government business but rather are lengthy strings of perhaps ad hominem attacks, personal attacks, or smears. That is not our approach. We will not be doing that. We will be answering questions, and we will also be putting policy debates to this House.

This is where policy debates should occur. This is where differences in perspectives should occur, and just because one does not like it when we answer with a policy perspective in a policy debate, it should not mean that one can shut down the possibility of doing that, which is what the opposition would like.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my question pertains to the debate itself. I will leave the other comments about the question being put.

The hon. House leader mentioned in the beginning of his speech, and it was also mentioned by the member for Burlington, the concept of supplying the question before the question is to be answered, which is a practice in other Westminster jurisdictions. At what point did the Conservatives advocate that when they were in opposition?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I should make it quite clear that I am not advocating that as an approach here. I think our forum for accountability is good. However, in answering, evaluating, and debating, we should realize where we sit on the ladder of accountability compared with other jurisdictions and do not require this. It would add a different measure.

Everyone should understand clearly that when they are hearing questions being asked in the U.K. parliament and seeing them on television, in most cases, those members have notice in advance. In fact, the current Speaker in Britain, Mr. Bercow, who has attracted a lot of controversy, was asked what his greatest change was in increasing accountability in Parliament. He said that it was the restoration of something called the “urgent question” whereby a member can write a letter to the Speaker that morning to say that a new subject has just broken and the member would like permission to ask a question on that urgent subject that day. The Speaker then decides if it is appropriate and gives notice to whoever the minister is for the subject of the question to be raised to please come to the House to answer questions on it.

That notice, on the same day, of the questions that are going to be asked is regarded as a radical approach and a step toward accountability in the U.K. Here we have it on every subject, on every issue, every day. We come here and do not know what we are going to face, and we have to get up and answer. We have to know our facts and be prepared to deal with any question—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am alone in feeling a fair degree of shock in the approach taken by the hon. government House leader in his response to an opposition day motion. I am afraid, as much as I could agree with him about partisanship on the part of the official opposition on many matters, that I do not see that as the primary motive here.

Turning the response to a suggestion about how we govern ourselves in question period to produce more respect in the House by once again using it as a partisan platform to attack the official opposition was disappointing. I had expected more, not moving that the question now be put to further reduce our opportunities to discuss this critical matter, taken in the interest of Canadians, in a non-partisan way.

I do not include all the other backbenchers, because, as the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert has pointed out in his new book and as I point out in my book, this place is about holding the Privy Council, the executive, to account. That is responsible government.

What we have is really bad high school theatre masquerading as Parliament. To put an end to that, we should hold ourselves to account and not heckle. We should hold ourselves to account and ask respectful questions, and we should hold the executive to account by expecting responsible, respectful, factual answers. That is not too much to hope for, but the government House leader has once again shown that his party wants to keep us in the gutter.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I would say that in the time I have been in the House, the one thing I have noticed most of all is that the tone of question period is set by the questions. Almost always, the tone of question period is set by the questions. I know certainly that when I have answered them, I have always answered in kind to the tone of the question that was asked. That is something all should reflect on when there is a motion before the House that is very one-sided and only seeks to affect what the government can do.

I will provide an example. Suppose there was a question, as we have had, on the government's policy on its recent EI job credit. It is a legitimate question to debate the alternatives. Is the opposition now saying suddenly that the government should not in response compare our policy with the policy, practice, or record of another party and what it did on the same issue in government? Is it saying that this kind of debate is no longer to be allowed? That is what this would do. They are saying that question period is only there for the government to lie prone while opposition members jump at the gun and beat it.

Government would no longer be allowed to respond with the record, statements, or positions of the other side. In fact, debate would no longer be debate. Debate would merely be an attack by the opposition, with no opportunity for the government to respond with comparisons of policies, track records, or approaches. Then we will be spending every day after question period with lengthy points of order debating whether what I said was responsive or was debate on something else to do with their separate policy on the same file and whether it was on topic or not on topic. We could see that this place would grind to a halt.

Debate should be debate. It should be free-ranging. People should be able to have an exchange of views and not a one-sided exchange.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons understands that we are talking about the relevance of answers to questions in terms of the subject that was being discussed. We are not talking about the quality of the answer. If I ask a question about X, the minister, the Prime Minister or the leader can certainly stand up and thank me for my interest in the subject and say that, unfortunately, he does not have the information with him to answer me, but that he would be pleased to provide it, or he could invite me to meet with him to talk about it. That would be enough for the Speaker to consider the answer to be relevant.

We are not talking about submitting written questions in advance; we are just talking about relevance. If I ask about potatoes, the answer should be about potatoes. If I ask about bananas, the answer should be about bananas. It is as simple as that.

As to the quality of the answer, the Speaker would intervene only if it were off topic and way out in left field. That is what we are talking about, not the quality of the content. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons seems to have taken this in another direction entirely. We are just talking about the relevance of the answer to the question that was asked.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will use a simple example to illustrate the problem posed in this change of rules.

If the opposition were to ask a question about supply management and free trade, under its rules, we would be barred from saying that the NDP has a history of opposing free trade agreements, as we saw with NAFTA. Of course, the question was not about NAFTA; it was about supply management. They are going to say that is unreasonable, but then they are going to get up and argue it on a point of order in front of the Speaker, or we are going to argue it on a point of order in front of the Speaker, and so it will go with every question.

What they want is an environment that is very simple: they would get to ask whatever question they want on any subject without notice, and we would be forced to play in that very narrow kind of arena. We cannot talk about their past history on the same kinds of subjects, similar issues in the past, because they are not asking about the past; they are asking about today. We cannot ask about their track record. If they want to ask questions about ethics, we cannot point out their hypocrisy; that would be inappropriate, but guess what? They do not want question period to be about debate. They want it to be about a one-sided free hand to punch the government while the government has its hands tied behind its back.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's what question period is.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

That is not what it should be. It should allow for a free and frank exchange.

I heard him say that's what he said it should be.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It is.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

My friend from Hamilton thinks it should be a one-sided pummelling with the government with its hands tied behind its back. That is not what it should be. It should allow for a reasonable dialogue and exchange of views.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House and debate this motion for several reasons.

I have been here since 2004 and I have heard the debate go back and forth. I have also sat through question period in all its grandeur and not so much grandeur. I have said before and I will say it again that I have always considered question period to be one of the most expensive dinner theatres ever run in this country—

[An hon. member]

Bad dinner theatre.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

—and it is bad dinner theatre at the best of times, but I cannot say that without taking some of the responsibility. Having been here for 10 years I have asked a few questions myself, theatrics included in some cases.

I have even gone to members on the other side to let them know what it is I am going to ask. I did that because it allowed them time to prepare an answer to give me. These were specific questions about things which the minister might not have been briefed upon. I was never compelled to do that and the other side was never compelled to give me a straightforward answer. In turn, we were never compelled to ask something specific to a specific minister. Even when we did at times go after a specific minister, another minister would pop up in place of the other minister. We would ask one minister and another minister would respond. It was like a constant game of whack-a-mole that just never ended.

One of the reasons we do that and continue to get away with it is that nothing has really been codified. For the most part, after looking at the research that we have done, most of it is simply by convention, by practices of the past. Past Speakers have made rulings as to how they thought question period should be handled, and by extension, other parts of debate which do not have relevance.

Let us take ourselves out of question period and talk about orders of the day, private members' business and so on, but especially orders of the day when we are arguing government bills. The Conservatives more often than not rise on a point of order to complain about the relevance of a particular speech being given by the Liberals, the NDP, or even the Green Party for that matter. I find it ironic that we find ourselves in the situation where relevance is not accepted as the norm in the House by the government when it complains so much that relevance does matter.

The convention that I spoke of earlier was laid down by Speaker Bosley, Speaker Jerome and Speaker Milliken. I will get to some of those in a few moments, but there is one Speaker I want to quote from primarily and that is Speaker Jerome. In addition to making some of these rulings back in the mid-1970s, he also wrote a book. Chronologically, it was in 1964 when there was actual codification about how question period should operate. O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice outlines how the evolution of question period came about.

We now have television and the press gallery, which has been around for quite some time. Question period talks about the relevant issues of the day. That is why it gets most of the attention. People go to school or work in the morning and they read the headlines, and the headlines invariably show up in question period as pertaining to government administration.

Rules have been put forth by Speakers indicating how we have to operate when it comes to question period. Most have to do with relevance, is it an issue of government administration or not. Peter Milliken talked about that earlier in his book of decisions, but I will get to that in a moment.

I want to quote Speaker Jerome, who made a statement in the House affecting the conduct of question period. He established that asking oral questions is “a right, not a privilege, of the members”. He established several things by going back to previous decisions. He talked about how, if we look at it, there are not a lot of rules. As far as timing goes, we ask a question that is 30 seconds long, and the answer is 35 seconds. The only rule laid out in the House about how that operates is not the amount of seconds for a question, but the fact that there is a 45-minute block in and around the proceedings.

We look at that, and Speakers have judged accordingly on issues that come up in the House and whether they have relevance or not as pertaining to the question, but not pertaining to the answer. Speaker Milliken famously said that it is question period, not answer period.

I wrote down some of the ground rules that were put down. Speaker Bosley, in 1986, also quoted Speaker Jerome in many instances. Here are some of the issues that he put out there as to how we should behave in question period: “ask a question; be brief; seek information; ask a question that is within the administrative responsibility of the government”, which is mostly when the Speaker intervenes about a particular question and whether it has relevance. At that point the Speaker usually goes on to the next questioner without the minister's or parliamentary secretary's response. A question should not seek an opinion, legal or otherwise.

Speaker Bosley also pointed out that maybe it should be hypothetical. God knows that when we get 35 seconds to speak, we tend to use it in the preamble leading up to the question that we want to ask, and which we want voters to hear.

A question should not seek information that is secretive in its nature, such as cabinet proceedings or advice given to the crown by law officers. We stay away from that as well. A question should not refer to proceedings in the Senate. We do not get into that. We do not refer to the Governor General.

These are the factors that really encapsulate the spirit of what question period is supposed to be, despite the lack of rules around it.

What we are doing here today with Standing Order 11(2) is we are trying to codify some of the behaviour. Therein is a fundamental shift. The House leader for the New Democrats talked about it being a small change. I am not sure if I totally agree with that. What we would do here is codify within the Standing Orders how we should behave in question period and what that answer should entail. It would do two things. It would codify behaviour and it would bring answers into the point of question period.

We use examples from the United Kingdom, as well as other jurisdictions, such as Australia, which have similar Westminster systems. However, in every case, if they act differently than we do, it is primarily because of the Speakers themselves. The Speaker has been the one proactive in saying, “I am sorry, but according to convention, members should not behave that way”. Even if it does not pertain to convention or past practices, maybe we should start curbing our behaviour in certain matters. Being more proactive in the role of the Speaker has been the modus operandi of change regarding question period.

It has also been argued that television has contributed to less than positive developments within the House. Of course, CPAC and the general media have access to what we are doing here in the House. We see the cameras here. They are on all the time when we are in session, and of course, the theatrics start to take over. This is where, as I have said before, we have now become the most expensive dinner theatre in the country, and not necessarily good theatre either, but that is a personal performance issue.

If we want to ask a question that pertains to our constituents, we should ask it regardless of codifying rules or convention that has been practised in the past. The answers should also be as respectful as the question which came in, but that is sorely lacking right now. This was evidenced last week, a few weeks ago, and even into the spring through some of the activities of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, notwithstanding his apology.

I thought the apology he brought forward in this House was a sincere one. The fact that he was not sticking to the subject caused him a lot of stress. I will leave it at that, because I do not want to speak on his behalf. The member has a seat here, and he can do so himself.

The lesson here is that it is okay for members to think outside of the box, but I do not think it is okay to think outside of the warehouse. The reason is that in doing so, we completely wipe out any proactive measure in this House that allows the House to be accountable. Imagine the concept of being accountable. Therein lies the reason we are debating this issue today.

This is why I will be voting for this motion, because it is a step in the right direction, one that is proactive and that could be worked upon. If it is a small measure, as the New Democrats say, then so be it; however, we are going in the right direction.

That is why I have also talked about Standing Order 31, statements in the House. Personally, I think statements by members should be just that. If a prominent person in a member's riding has passed away, it deserves a mention in the House. If someone is having an anniversary, it deserves a mention in the House. As far as I am concerned, everybody in my riding should be mentioned in this House. I understand time is of the essence, but, my goodness, that would be a great thing to do.

Instead, the statements have become these 30-second negative ads toward the other party. I have said many times that when many of the Conservative members read their S. O. 31s, they leave out one very important point at the end, which says, “I am the Prime Minister and I approve this ad.” That is the only thing that is missing.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that we are all in this together. If the behaviour from the other side is something that a member is not impressed with, then, my God, it is about time we started practising what we preach. That is for all of us to do.

Earlier this spring we talked about expenses and transparency. The Liberal Party decided to be proactive and not to wait for something to come toward us that would force us into a corner. We knew it was right and we did it, and now everybody is doing it—at least, I think so. Well, we are almost there.

Nonetheless, behaviour has a way of trending and has a way of influencing others to behave in the best way and, dare I say it, in a manner that is accountable to the average Canadian, as this House was meant to be.

I have referred to Speaker Jerome and Speaker Bosley. Now I would like to turn to Speaker Milliken.

There are no restraints on content, which is what Speaker Milliken talked about. He is right in that sense. I could get up right now and talk about muppets, puppets, and other things with no relevance whatsoever to what is happening in the country, unless one is into puppets.

We expect the government to answer about relevant situations, but not about the exact issue that I bring up if it is not relevant to the debate in this country. This is where I say we have to practise what we preach. I like to think that many of us do.

I do not want to accuse any member in particular, or any party in particular, of taking the rules and stretching them to absolute absurdity. I have seen that in this House, and practised by all. Unfortunately, I have seen it practised by the government recently to a point where it is almost as though the government thinks nobody is watching. I like to think people are, whether it is here or on camera.

I mentioned Standing Order 31s being the same sort of thing, personal attacks. I want to quote Speaker Milliken in a decision on December 14, 2010, about an issue regarding personal attacks, as he said something rather pertinent:

The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order.

That pertained to personal attacks.

What this does, which is very important, is that it also extends that respect to other members, given the subject matter, given the fact that we have to respond in kind to the issue at hand. I believe some members in the official opposition brought this up earlier and jokingly said that if it is not an answer to my direct question, at least stay within the ballpark when it comes to the issue itself.

The House leader brought up a situation with free trade, saying we did not support NAFTA, so what about this other free trade agreement, or supply management? I may not like the answer, but at least it ties into the subject matter to the point where it is somewhat acceptable.

What is not acceptable is what occurs when I have a grievance with the government. Let us remember that we have only 45 minutes of the day. When I have a grievance with the government and state what it is, the response is “No, I have a grievance with you.” The government responds that it has a grievance with the other party. There is no linkage to the issue that was brought up in the beginning, none whatsoever.

We need to stay within the context of the House. Otherwise, it is an absolute waste of money. It truly becomes the most expensive dinner theatre ever produced in this country, and as my hon. colleague from Ontario would say, it is not even good theatre.

Those are personal attacks.

This is from daily proceedings on March 27, 2001. We talked about what could be asked. The Speaker's response was:

—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.

What this issue came from was the administrative responsibility of the government and questions ruled out of order because they were not directed toward that. The issue at the time was about taking trips abroad to further one's education as a member, which is fine; that is what we do here. However, the trip was paid for by someone else externally, not the government, so therefore the Speaker ruled the question was not admissible because it was not related to the administration of the government. Oddly enough, the precursor to the Conservatives at the time, the Canadian Alliance party, argued that it was part of relevance because it was the behaviour of a particular person.

Again, if the Conservatives felt that question period was a farce at the time, why practise now what they thought was totally wrong? Why would they now practise what they preached against? Not that much time has passed in 14 years that we do not remember that some of the people who are currently in the House vehemently argued for relevance in question period of the day's happenings. Everything was talked about as the answer, yet it was not codified.

I suspect if we do not do something soon, this dinner theatre will become the theatre of the absurd in the most profound way, and 45 minutes of the day will be completely and utterly wasted on the Canadian public that pays for this charade.

However, I pledge to the House, like many others, that we need to practise what we preach. It is time for us to look at question period and codify this. It is time for us to look at the decisions handed down by people such as Speaker Milliken, or Speaker Jerome in the 1970s, who wrote about this issue quite a bit. Speaker Bosley as well accentuated in a very profound manner what question period is and is not, in the spirit of allowing Canadians to see the House of Commons the way it should be: accountable and, for goodness' sake, effective.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to address some comments I made in an article published this morning. I am concerned that these comments may leave people with the impression that I was questioning the neutrality or the authority of the Speaker. I wish to assure the House that this was not my intention. Please accept my apologies, Mr. Speaker.