44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 29, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/29/24 10:01:47 a.m.
- Watch
I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on January 31 by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the question of privilege raised on February 9 by the member for Edmonton Strathcona concerning the government's responses to their written questions. While they were raised distinctly, given the procedural similarities of the two questions, the Chair intends to provide a single ruling.
The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan shared his concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the government’s response to Question No. 2155. The member claimed that the response tabled on January 29, 2024, failed to identify the sub-implementing partners who are involved in delivering aid to Palestinian refugees. He argued that his question was seeking information about all organizations providing Canadian aid, which implies both implementing and sub‑implementing partners.
By way of a question of privilege, the member for Edmonton Strathcona made a similar complaint, expressing dissatisfaction with multiple elements of the government's responses to three of her written questions, namely, Questions No. 2068, 2069 and 2070. She argued that the inadequacy of the responses was so glaring that it interfered with her ability to carry out her parliamentary duties, including holding the government to account.
She contended that the government specifically failed to answer several sub-questions embedded in the larger questions and that one response appeared to contain the wrong information. She asked that the Chair review her questions and the responses in conjunction with relevant procedural authorities and precedents in the hope that her complaint rises to the level of a prima facie question of privilege.
On February 12, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tabled a revised response to Question No. 2070, stating that inaccurate information had been provided in the initial response; this was due to an error. He also stated that the Minister of Foreign Affairs had apologized to the member for Edmonton Strathcona for this mistake.
Members have frequently complained to the Chair about their dissatisfaction over government responses to their written questions. There are abundant precedents from past Speakers’ rulings on these kinds of grievances. I would refer members to the Debates of April 25, 2022, at pages 4310 and 4311, for such a similar example.
While the Chair can empathize with the frustration that members may have about not receiving the type of information they think should be included in a response, precedents show that the Chair cannot direct the government to respond in a given way.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at pages 529 and 530, summarizes the situation:
There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions. Nonetheless, on several occasions, Members have raised questions of privilege in the House regarding the accuracy of information contained in responses to written questions; in none of these cases was the matter found to be a prima facie breach of privilege. The Speaker has ruled that it is not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate nor to “assess the likelihood of an Hon. Member knowing whether the facts contained in a document are correct”.
Having reviewed the specific concerns raised by both the members for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and Edmonton Strathcona, the Chair is not of the view that their complaints deviate from similar ones in the past. As such, I am left with little option but to apply established precedents consistent with the approach my predecessors have taken.
Consequently, I do not find that there is a prima facie case of privilege concerning the request made by the member for Edmonton Strathcona, and I consider the matter closed for both submissions made to the Chair.
That being said, the Chair notes the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House after he supplied a revised response to Question No. 2070. He acknowledged that it is the right of members to have the best information available to do their important work.
As many Speakers before me have done, I would emphasize the essential purpose written questions serve in our parliamentary institution. Not only are Order Paper questions an important part of our accountability mechanisms, forcing the government to justify its choices, but their responses are also instrumental in helping members to better understand the government's programs, activities and expenses. When members receive complete and accurate answers to their questions so they can make informed decisions, it serves everyone, including those who elected us.
The Chair therefore strongly encourages the government to follow through on its statement and provide to members the best information available.
I thank all members for their attention.
812 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 10:10:28 a.m.
- Watch
It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to section 10.5 of the Lobbying Act, a report on investigation from the Commissioner of Lobbying.
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 10:14:09 a.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:14:43 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:22:28 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:23:49 p.m.
- Watch
I would like to remind all members to ensure that they do not direct language that would be unparliamentary at any of their colleagues.
The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:28:58 p.m.
- Watch
Colleagues, once again I ask that you please be respectful of the questions that are asked and, of course, of the answers given, for many reasons. One reason is that members who require the use of translation cannot hear if members are shouting.
The hon. member for Burnaby South.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:33:01 p.m.
- Watch
Colleagues, it is hard for the Chair to hear the response. If members are not satisfied with the response, sometimes the best opportunity is just to listen to it in silence and let it stand on its own.
The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has the floor.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:34:24 p.m.
- Watch
I will ask the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake to please keep his comments to himself. He will have the floor when he asks a question.
The hon. Minister of Health.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:44:53 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton had the opportunity to ask two questions. I am certain he could speak to his House leader to ask for more questions in the House, but until that time, I would ask him to wait until he has the floor.
The hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:46:34 p.m.
- Watch
Colleagues, those of us who have the ability to speak both languages have a clear advantage in the House in that we do not require headsets, but for those of us who do require them, it is very difficult to hear the questions and the answers if there is too much noise in the House. I ask all members, out of respect for their colleagues, to please listen to the answers and the questions.
The hon member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:49:41 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. Minister of Health.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:51:46 p.m.
- Watch
I would ask the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier to refrain from speaking until he has the floor.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:55:42 p.m.
- Watch
May I encourage hon. members who do not have the floor to wait until it is their turn to speak?
That way, we can have a discussion. I am not encouraging discussion across the aisle.
The hon. Minister of Innovation.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 3:04:12 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. government House leader.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 3:09:09 p.m.
- Watch
I expect all colleagues to have respect for each other and to wait their turn to be recognized by the Chair. At that point, when they have the opportunity to speak, I also request that all people listen to them.
The hon. minister.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 3:11:20 p.m.
- Watch
I will ask the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets to please wait his turn.
The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
