The Daily Program / Daily Proceedings

Oral Questions: response to written question (deemed unsatisfactory); cost of response mentioned

November 27, 2012

Debates, pp. 12536–7

On November 5, 2012, during Oral Questions, Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North), asked Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety) why she had not received a more detailed response to a written question. The Minister replied that it had cost taxpayers more than $1,300 just to determine whether an answer was possible, and that answering the written question in greater detail would cost even more.^[1] Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie) rose on a point of order, alleging that it was out of order for the government to indicate in a response to a written question the total time and cost incurred in the preparation of the response. After hearing from another Member, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2]

Resolution

On November 27, 2012, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He reminded Members of the underlying principles of written questions, and encouraged them to word their questions in such a way as to receive a response within the 45-day time limit, and the Government to respond with as much information as possible. The Speaker concluded that the Minister’s reply was not out of order because the rules that apply to written questions do not apply to answers given during Oral Questions.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 5,  2012, by the hon. Member for Westmount—Ville-Marie and the House Leader of the Liberal Party, regarding the nature of an answer given to a written question.

I would like to thank the House Leader of the Liberal Party for having raised the matter, as well [as] the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his comments.

During Question Period on November 5, the Member for Etobicoke North asked the Minister of Public Safety why the Government had not provided a substantive response to her written question No. 873, a very lengthy and complicated question about disaster risk reduction and recovery. The Minister replied that it had cost more than $1,300 just to determine whether an answer was possible, and suggested that the cost of preparing a comprehensive response would be prohibitive.

In raising this point of order, the House Leader of the Liberal Party objected to the Minister of Public Safety’s reference to the cost of preparing a response to the question, claiming that this was contrary to our practices, as described at page 522 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, which states:

… it is not in order to indicate in a response to a written question the total time and cost incurred by the government in the preparation of that response.

However, the Liberal House Leader’s main complaint was about the nature of the response provided to the written question itself. Specifically, he expressed concern that the nature of the response—a brief statement about why the question would not be answered—was setting a “dangerous precedent”.

In response, the Government House leader stated that the Government’s response to question No. 873 made no references to the cost of its preparation, and that the costing information had been provided by the Minister of Public Safety only in the response to an oral question.

It may be useful at the outset to remind all Members of the purpose of oral and written questions to the Government. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 491 states, and I quote:

The right to seek information from the ministry of the day and the right to hold that ministry accountable are recognized as two of the fundamental principles of parliamentary government. Members exercise these rights principally by asking questions in the House. The importance of questions within the parliamentary system cannot be overemphasized and the search for or clarification of information through questioning is a vital aspect of the duties undertaken by individual Members. Questions may be asked orally without notice or may be submitted in writing after due notice.

While Members are well aware of our practices as they relate to Oral Questions, they may be less familiar with those that regulate written questions. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states at pages 519 and 520, in relation to questions:

In general, written questions are lengthy, often containing two or more subsections, and seek detailed or technical information from one or more government departments or agencies.... Given that the purpose of a written question is to seek and receive a precise, detailed answer, it is incumbent on a Member submitting a question for the Notice Paper “to ensure that it is formulated carefully enough to elicit the precise information sought”.

Practices that regulate answers to written questions are similarly referenced at page 522, and I quote:

The guidelines that apply to the form and content of written questions are also applicable to the answers provided by the government. As such, no argument or opinion is to be given and only the information needed to respond to the question is to be provided in an effort to maintain the process of written questions as an exchange of information rather than an opportunity for debate. As with oral questions, it is acceptable for the government, in responding to a written question, to indicate to the House that it cannot supply an answer. On occasion, the government has supplied supplementary or revised replies to questions already answered. The Speaker, however, has ruled that it is not in order to indicate in a response to a written question the total time and cost incurred by the government in the preparation of that response.

Let me assure the House that I realize full well that over the years Speakers have recognized that they exercise little oversight in the matter of written questions. As always, however, the Chair remains attentive to these matters and is ready to assist in any way it can in ensuring that written questions continue to serve Members as an important channel of genuine information exchange.

So I take this as an opportunity to ask the House to bear in mind the underlying purpose of a written question, namely the seeking of information. In my view, it is incumbent on the Member who submits it to formulate it in such a way that it is in fact answerable. As such, it is not unreasonable to expect, particularly where the Member submitting a question attaches to it the 45-day time limit, that it would be worded in such a way as to allow the Government to provide the information requested within the time allotted. Not surprisingly, a question that fails to do so is more likely to yield an answer that fails to meet the questioner’s expectations.

Likewise, the Chair believes that it is not unreasonable for Members submitting a written question to expect that the Government would make an attempt to provide as much information as possible in response in the time available.

If, perhaps due to a request for a reply within 45 days, all of [the] information being sought cannot be produced in time, it is also always open to the Government to return later with a supplementary reply to a question already answered.

However, on careful examination of written question No. 873 and the reply it received, it would seem to the Chair that both the Member asking the question and the Government might yet find a way to achieve a result that would satisfy both parties. Is it possible that a differently worded question, resubmitted, could elicit a substantive reply about the Government’s disaster management activities and policies? The Chair would like to think so. This would help allay the fears expressed by the Member for Westmount—Ville-Marie that answers, such as the one provided to written question No. 873, could recur and become a standard response. In the meantime, I can assure the Member that having looked into the matter, the Chair can report to the House that this is not at present part of a pattern that it can find in responses to written questions.

Meanwhile, in the case at hand, the Chair does not find that the rules that apply to the content of replies to written questions also apply to responses given during Oral Questions, even if the oral question relates to a written question. Accordingly, the Chair cannot find that the reply by the Minister of Public Safety during Oral Questions is out of order or has in any way offended our practices as they relate to written questions.

I thank hon. Members for their attention.