- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
- Apr/17/24 5:22:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, will the witness provide the response, in writing, to the question I have asked, which he claims to be unable to answer?
Will he provide it in writing, within 14 days, to the Speaker and to the committee, yes or no?
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/24 5:21:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the witness has asked if he has to provide responses. I would submit to you that the whole reason he is here is that he has refused to provide responses. This is why the House is taking this matter so seriously.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/24 5:20:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, will the witness undertake to provide a response to that question in writing to the Speaker and to the government operations committee within 14 days?
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/23 3:28:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, is it possible to identify the Liberal members who said nay in response to—
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 9:40:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate your taking it under advisement and returning to the House at the appropriate time. The question is Question No. 1398, and the response was tabled on April 13.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 9:39:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to briefly, while I have chance, raise concerns about the response I received to Order Paper Question No. 1398. I think that I did not receive a response to this question, so I wonder if the Chair could review the matter and return to the House about it. It was a question regarding gender parity among staff. The question identifies a number of specific areas where I am looking for information about the gender parity among chiefs of staff, directors of policy, directors of communications and other political exempt staff.
The response I received does not provide any of that information. It says that the government is steadfast in its commitment on the—
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 5:56:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The rules do require me to raise issues of order as soon as they come up. Therefore, I want to draw the attention of the House and raise a point of order with respect to the response that was tabled on Question No. 351. This was a question on the Order Paper that I had tabled earlier.
Question No. 351 was with respect to vaccination policies for the federal public service. I asked a detailed series of questions, asking for various points of data including things like whether replacement workers had to be brought in to cover for workers who were put on unpaid leave as a result of their vaccination status. It included questions about, for instance, whether the government had conducted an assessment of the impact on services of work that was not done as a result of employees being put on leave.
The question I had put forward had parts (a) through (v) and the response that the government tabled provided responses to some of the sub-items that were listed in Question No. 351. It did not provide any comments whatsoever on many of the items.
The government has an obligation to respond to questions that are put forward. I understand that it is not in the responsibility of the Chair to evaluate the quality of the responses. In this case, the government is lucky that is not required. However, I would submit that the obligation of response does not just deal with the question overall. It should include an obligation to respond to the specific elements in each of the questions. In particular, there should be some response to all of the elements (a) through (v) in the question, including some of the specific points that were not responded to, such as what was required of replacement workers to cover for those who were put on administrative leave and whether workers were required to perform additional tasks for those who were put on unpaid leave, etc.
Madam Speaker, I would ask that you review the matter and advise with respect to the government's obligation here because we are seeing in general, I think it is fair to say, a decline in the quality of any kind of responses. As much as it is not for the Chair to get into the detail of the response and to say that it was a pretty good response or not a good response, the government should not be able to, in response to questions, just put up any text that is wholly irrelevant to the question asked or respond to one part while ignoring whole swaths of the question. The House should reasonably find that this does not satisfy the government's obligation with respect to responding to questions.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I would ask you to look at Question No. 351, this particularly egregious case of the government's putting forward text that totally ignores whole parts of the question, and advise whether this is the kind of approach we want to see from the government going forward.
521 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
