SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 216

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 19, 2023 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 216 - Jun/19/23
Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)
  • Jun/19/23 12:12:40 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have reserved the right to respond to the government's response to my question of privilege. I believe it was on Friday that the member for Brampton North added some government response to the question of privilege I raised last week with regard to the government withholding information on an Order Paper question and proof of this. The member for Brampton North said the following: The government met the requirements of the Standing Orders in tabling its response to the Order Paper question. The response to the access to information request provides a legitimate rationale as to the reasons it was not in a position to include certain information in its response. The problem with that is twofold. First of all, my question, Order Paper Question No. 974, had many aspects of information requested. The member for Brampton North said that the government was “not in a position to include certain information in its response”, but the government should have endeavoured to answer all parts of the question. I will read an email from the ATIP that brought this question of privilege to light for your consideration in making your ruling, Mr. Speaker. It is from Eleni Deroukakis in the Department of Natural Resources. This person is a deputy director-level staffer member. The email reads: Hi Dan, See the official tasking for this request. As we discussed last week, it might be a good approach to leverage on the “generic” email you prepared on this issue. I sent you Kim's feedback on that response that I just received this morning. Also as discussed, the response needs to be as high level as possible (instead of addressing every single question).... Therefore, the staffers met and decided to deliberately withhold information from the answer to my Order Paper question. Again, I just want to re-emphasize this; it is on pages 2 and 3 of the ATIP, and it was to specifically not answer certain parts of the question. Mr. Speaker, I will give you an example of the information they chose to withhold. One part of my question was to ask which government official gave an interview to the CBC on the story that had originated my OPQ request. The paragraph in question in this article reads, “The Canadian government has been active, too. Canadian officials say they've already provided the U.S. with a list of 70 projects that could warrant U.S. funding.” I wanted to know who told the CBC that, so that I could follow up and perhaps get more information or a briefing. However, the staffer at Natural Resources said that they did not want to answer; they made an active effort not to answer any part of my question, and they conspired on that. As per the Speaker's ruling that I referenced from 1980 in my original submission on this question of privilege, there is a deliberate effort to withhold information. The other point of rebuttal that I would like to make, on the assertion of the member forBrampton North that the government was in a position to withhold this, is that it is not just my Order Paper question that the Department of Natural Resources has decided to use this method of what they call “high-level limitation language”. There is a table that I would draw your attention to, Mr. Speaker, when you are making your ruling. It outlines at least, I believe, 15 other members who had an Order Paper question. It is all strategy in the comments part of that table on whether “high-level limitation language” would provide a risk. I will read one particular answer, which is in regards to a colleague asking for some basic details on government contracts, which was a generic question to all government departments. This is what the Department of Natural Resources said: “NRCan answer uses limitation language and does not disclose specific cancelled contracts from the time period requested. Communications risk appears low and depends on whether NRCan stands out among all departments answering. Inherent risk of limitation language is accepted.” Mr. Speaker, when you are making your ruling, I would ask you to consider what the department is referring to when it says that “inherent risk” is acceptable. I interpret this as saying that the risk of me complaining to you, Mr. Speaker, or pointing out that they have deliberately withheld information is acceptable, based on whether other departments actually provide information. NRCan has actually strategized on the opportunity cost of not pulling that information, which I am entitled to under the Standing Orders, on the gamble that you are going to rule that this is okay. Just to re-emphasize, this is what I pointed out in my original question of privilege when NRCan's deputy chief of staff, Kyle Harrietha, said that the Speaker will just tut-tut this and let it go. The Speaker, in December 1980, pointed out that if there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member, this would constitute a breach of privilege in terms of how Order Paper questions are responded to. This ATIP clearly shows that the Department of Natural Resources has a pervasive culture of trying to withhold information from members through communication strategies, as opposed to trying to provide that information and then figuring out the communication process afterward. The department has it backwards. It is diminishing my ability as a member to find this information and do my job as per the Standing Orders, and it is also diminishing your role as Chair. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider that. This is very serious. I encourage you to read through the ATIP. It is troubling. I would argue against what the member for Brampton North said; it was a deliberate attempt to withhold information.
990 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 216 - Jun/19/23
Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner
  • Jun/19/23 12:25:45 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, when you are making your ruling on this, I would ask that you look to the response to Question No. 1113, which is the question on which my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola is raising his additional information. I would ask you to look specifically at the language under the NRCan response, which is different from other departments. Other departments actually undertook a search of these contracts, but NRCan used what it referred to in the ATIP as “high-level limitation language”. I would also ask you, Speaker, when you do that, to look at how there is similar language now from departments across all other Order Paper questions. I suspect that if there are further ATIPs, we will find the government has adopted an approach of “high-level limitation language”. It is a copy-and-paste across departments, which is a purposeful attempt to deny members of information, and goes against the spirit of the Standing Orders. Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.
174 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border