SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of the Board of Internal Economy House leader of the official opposition

Hon. Andrew Scheer

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of the Board of Internal Economy House leader of the official opposition
  • Conservative
  • Regina—Qu'Appelle
  • Saskatchewan
  • Voting Attendance: 63%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $172,932.98

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 249 - Nov/8/23
Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)
  • Nov/8/23 4:23:27 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, we had a question in question period today from the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona that had absolutely nothing to do with the administrative responsibilities of government. It was directed at the Conservative opposition, and you allowed the Prime Minister to respond. In a question currently before you, the House leader for the NDP quoted extensively from one of my previous rulings as Speaker on questions that have nothing to do with the administrative role of government. I just want to quote it, only because it has been referenced in previous points from other members intervening on this question. I said: ...as I said on December 1, 2011, (Debates, p. 3875), the Speaker is called upon to make decisions about the admissibility of questions on the fly. In that regard, since members have very little time to pose their questions and the Chair has even less time to make decisions about their admissibility, it would be helpful if the link to the administrative responsibility of the government were made as quickly as possible. Accordingly, these kinds of questions will continue to risk being ruled out of order and members should take care to establish the link to government responsibility as quickly as possible. I have had a chance to look at the blues and the question from the member for Edmonton Strathcona. There is nothing about the federal government's area of responsibility in it. It was an attack levelled at the leader of the Conservative Party. I wanted to cite that part about making the point as quickly as possible because what we found today is that you allowed basically a 35-second attack against the Leader of the Opposition but did not allow the Leader of the Opposition to respond. You allowed the Prime Minister to respond. I understand why that would be the normal instinct, as it is government members who answer questions during question period. However, what I would urge you to reflect on as you come back to the House on this larger point about these questions is that if you wait until the very end of a question to make that determination and if members do not make a link to the administrative responsibility of the government early, you end up running the risk of having an unanswered attack on a member or another party. When the government has the ability to defend itself, you, as many Speakers have in the past, have allowed the government to answer questions that may otherwise have been ruled out of order for precisely that reason: An attack has been levelled and a charge has been made. The courteous thing to do is to allow a minister who would like to respond to use the opportunity to do so. However, when that attack is made against an opposition leader, there is no opportunity for a response to be made. It puts the House in a difficult situation when we have members being accused of something. In every other aspect of debate, including questions and comments during speeches and when we have motions for time allocation, there is an attack and a counterattack. There is a response to the questions being asked. The scenario we had today was an attack on the Leader of the Opposition, followed by an attack on the Leader of the Opposition. It was a coalition partner asking another coalition partner a question about the Leader of the Opposition. That is the unfortunate situation that arose out of question period today. What I would urge you to do when an attack is being made against an opposition party is to quickly determine early on in the question whether there is as link to government business and then not allow the government coalition partner to respond to an attack from the junior coalition partner. That does not respect the tradition and purpose of question period.
651 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border