1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Nos. 150 and 151
OF THE
Thursday, April 8, 1999
Ten o'clock a.m.
Prayers by Mr. Hartley.
The House proceeded to "Orders of the Day."
Bill (No. 51) intituled Nisga'a Final Agreement Act was again committed.
The Committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again.
Bill to be considered at the next sitting.
The Speaker made a statement as follows:
Honourable Members:
I have some observations to make relating to recent proceedings in the House. After reviewing the Blues from Oral Question Period during the last week of sittings, it seems to the Chair that Members need to be reminded about some basic rules applicable to Oral Question Period.
The Chair is making this statement well in advance of today's Oral Question Period so that both sides of the House will have ample notice of the Chair's view on this matter.
I have examined the statement made by the Speaker of this House on May 5, 1998, and feel it appropriate at this time to remind Honourable Members what was said at that time, and I quote, in part, as follows:
"The rules applicable to Oral Question Period are not complicated, and perhaps the best summary is outlined in our Standing Order 47a (b).
`Questions and answers shall be brief and precise and stated without argument or opinion.'
Any objective analysis of the current questions and answers leads to the conclusion that the quoted guidelines have been judiciously ignored by both sides of the House."
A slightly expanded guideline for questions and answers contained within the same decision, is as follows:
"`The question must be brief. A preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence. A long preamble on a long question takes an unfair share of time and provokes the same sort of reply. A supplementary question should need no preamble.'
`An answer should be confined to the points contained in the question, with such explanation only as renders the answer intelligible, though a certain latitude is permitted to Ministers of the Crown.'"
There is an increasing tendency to turn Oral Question Period into a vehicle for personal attack by both sides of the House which the Chair finds unacceptable. Having said that, it is generally the tone of the question which sets the stage for the answer. If it appears to the Chair that the phrasing of the question or answer offends the well established rules for Oral Question Period, the Chair will intervene, without explanation, and request the Member to rephrase the question or answer. If any Member wishes an explanation for the Chair's intervention, he or she may pursue the matter privately with the Speaker. Neither Question Period time nor House time, generally, will be used for any such explanations.
I wish to make further observations.
During the course of Question Period, several Members on both sides of the House are offering gratuitous advice from their seats relating to the conduct of Question Period. Their interjections varying between a call for "order", a call for "question", a call for "time". Such interventions show a lack of respect for the Chair and add nothing to the conduct of Question Period. If Members have a legitimate point of order they wish to raise, they may be aware that, on the conclusion of Question Period, they are entitled to rise on a point of order and state the matter, but it is unacceptable for these interjections to continue in their present form.
I request Honourable Members who are engaging in such interjections to desist.
The usual parliamentary practice is to avoid singling out Members of the House unless their behaviour is deemed to be inappropriate and a reprimand is felt to be necessary. In this particular instance, however, as the conduct of Question Period is currently under examination, I would commend to all Honourable Members the phrasing and delivery of questions used by the Honourable Member for Peace River South. It seems to the Chair that those questions are relatively concise, non-personal and conform with the best traditions of parliamentary practice. It is perhaps no accident that the answers the Honourable Member receives, are full, courteous and lacking in personal invective.
Gretchen Mann Brewin, Speaker
And then the House adjourned at 11.55 a.m.
Thursday, April 8, 1999
Two o'clock p.m.
Order called for "Oral Questions by Members."
The Hon. P. Priddy (Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Seniors) made a ministerial statement regarding cancer survival rates in British Columbia.
Mr. Hansen made a statement.
The Hon. D. Lovick (Minister of Labour) tabled the Labour Relations Board Annual Report, 1998.
The Hon. G. Mann Brewin (Speaker) tabled the Ombudsman Public Report No. 38 -- Righting the Wrong: The Confinement of the Sons of Freedom Doukhobor Children.
The Hon. C. McGregor (Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks) tabled the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Annual Report, 1998.
The House proceeded to "Orders of the Day."
Bill (No. 51) intituled Nisga'a Final Agreement Act was again committed.
The Committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again.
Bill to be considered at the next sitting.
The Hon. P. Ramsey (Minister of Education) tabled the Ministry of Education Annual Report, 1997/98.
And then the House adjourned at 5.49 p.m.
GRETCHEN MANN BREWIN, Speaker
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1999: Queen’s Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada