13

Questions without answers


 

Fans of Parliamentary procedure take note, the Speaker allowed three questions today (all by the NDP, two having to do with election financing, another about Conservative party involvement with student politics) to go unanswered on account of the queries having nothing to do with government business.

The Conservative side seemed pleased with these rulings.


 
Filed under:

Questions without answers

  1. …then Libby Davies raised a point of order.
    Allow me to paraphrase:
    LD: “Oh yeah? Well, I’m going to looking that!”
    PM: “Sure, go head, but you’ll find that I’m right. So there!”

  2. The speaker has, a number of times in the past few weeks, said <> (eg. when an NDP member asked if the Science minister believed in evolution), but the government kept standing up and answering that question, so he let the question stand.

  3. Do any questions ever get answered?

    • I seem to remember Trudeau answering one once – people didn’t like it … no sir not one bit. Except of course the deaf people who could read the sign language.

  4. The Conservative side seemed pleased with these rulings.
    Well, we can’t possibly have that, now, can we.

    • Absolutely not! Under no circumstances can we have anything in this forum that even remotely suggested such. No sirree that would be completely unacceptable!

      • When did the word “opposition” morph into the phrase “fan club”? You could stop obsessing over a little institutional competition — since it’s not good for you mental health.

  5. I assume that Milliken was just doing his job properly.

  6. Good for the Speaker. The Tories evade even good questions but, if there’s one thing this decade has proved conclusively, it’s that if you ask a stupid question you will get a stupid answer.

  7. That’s what I like to see Miliken letting questions go unanswered – now there is a novel thought!

    • LOL

  8. conservs seemed pleased? more like *relieved*…

  9. the Speaker allowed three questions today to go unanswered on account of the queries having nothing to do with government business</I.

    I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with that, but it does seem a bit onerous to force the Speaker to actually enforce a distinction between the three questions that he’ll “allow” to go unanswered because they have nothing to do with government business, and every other question which goes unanswered because the government is not really expected to answer the questions put to them in Question Period (as has been pointed out MANY times, they don’t call it “Answer Period” after all, and that’s for a very good reason”.

    I’m also slightly unclear just what the distinction here is exactly. Is the Speaker simply saving the government the time and effort of having someone stand up and say a bunch of things that don’t answer the question? If that’s the case, perhaps a better way to categorize what the Speaker did was that he allowed the government to not respond to the questions that were deemed to have nothing to do with government business. Because saying that he allowed them not to answer the questions kinda implies that the government needs the Speakers permission to not answer questions during Question Period, which is OBVIOUSLY AND DEMONSTRABLY not the case.

Sign in to comment.