That was the message handed down by the normally affable Scheer just before question period got underway Wednesday.
In a brief statement, Scheer reminded MPs that, as Speaker, he "is the servant, neither of any part of the House nor of any majority in the House, but of the entire institution," as stated in the parliamentary bible, House of Commons Procedure and Practice.
As such, he continued, the Speaker "may exercise only those powers conferred upon him or her by the House, within the limits established by the House itself" — which, based on "long-standing practice," means staying firmly off the field during question period.
Scheer stressed that it is not up to him to decide "whether the content of a response is in fact an answer," as his predecessor, Peter Milliken, put it in 2010.
"As we have heard many times," he continued, still quoting Milliken, "that is why it is called question period not answer period."
Contrary to the suggestion made by NDP Leader Tom Mulcair on Tuesday, Scheer informed the House that "any suggestion that the rules of repetition and relevance apply to question period is wrong and ignores the long list of Speakers’ ruling to the contrary."
Allegations could be 'punished'
He also noted that commenting on "the character or actions of the Speaker" — like, for instance, an allegation of bias" — "could be taken by the House as breaches of privilege and punished accordingly."
Scheer ended with an appeal to MPs on all sides of the House.
"The kind of unsavoury language or expression that we heard yesterday do little to assist the Chair in managing question period proceedings," he noted.
"I urge all Members to be judicious in the expressions they choose to use."
If he was hoping his comments would wipe the slate clean from Tuesday's fracas, however, Scheer was likely disappointed.
Although Conservative and Liberal MPs responded to his statement with a standing ovation, the New Democratic Party caucus remained seated.
Full text of Scheer's statement:
Before we proceed to Question Period, the Chair wishes to make a brief statement.
The office of Speaker is an ancient one, and there are many procedural authorities in this country and abroad, that describe the Speaker’s role.
Our own tome, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, encapsulates my role as follows at page 307:
With respect to Question Period proceedings, contrary to what some Members and others may believe, this means adhering to practices that have evolved over a broad span of time, and that have consistently been upheld by successive Speakers.
By way of example, on October 28, 2010 (Debates, p. 5505), Speaker Milliken said:
The issue came up again on December 1, 2010 (Debates, p. 6677) and on that occasion Speaker Milliken stated:
In my own ruling regarding Question Period proceedings, delivered on January 28, 2014 (Debates, p. 2204) I stated very clearly:
To date, the House has not seen fit to alter our practices or give direction to the Chair in that regard.
That being said, I have no doubt that Canadians expect Members to elevate the tone and substance of question period exchanges.
As your Speaker, I hope the House can rise to that challenge.
To be absolutely clear on another point, any suggestion that the rules of repetition and relevance apply to question period is wrong and ignores the long list of Speakers’ ruling to the contrary.
Another of our time-honoured traditions is that of respect for the office of Speaker.
O’Brien and Bosc, at page 313 states that:
I wish to conclude with an appeal to Members on all sides.
Needless to say, the kind of unsavoury language or expression that we heard yesterday do little to assist the Chair in managing Question Period proceedings and I urge all Members to be judicious in the expressions they choose to use.
I also ask all Members to heed my request of last January 28 (Debates, p. 2204), when I asked Members:Suggest a correction