Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Freedom from obstruction: alleged insufficient response to a written question

April 3, 2012

Debates, pp. 6856–8

On March 14, 2012, Hélène Laverdière (Laurier–Sainte-Marie) rose on a point of order concerning the government’s response to written question Q-410. Ms. Laverdière stated that her questions had not been answered and that the government response indicating that more information would be coming shortly was inadequate. She asked the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate whether the Government would provide an answer to the question before the expiry of the 45-day period. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) indicated that the government had replied within the 45-day period and confirmed that further information would be forthcoming.^[1] On March 28, 2012, Ms. Laverdière rose on a question of privilege on the same matter, reiterating that the government response did not answer the questions nor the 21 sub-questions despite the information requested being available. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) responded that the Government had stated orally in the House that much of what was asked was premature and that such information did not exist. Furthermore, he responded that it was not a matter for the Speaker to decide as the Chair has no role in reviewing the content of government responses to questions. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2]

Resolution

On April 3, 2012, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He stated that the role of the Chair in such matters was extremely limited as there are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to pass judgement on the accuracy or completeness of government responses to questions. Moreover, disputes regarding the accuracy or appropriateness of a response to a question have traditionally been deemed a matter of debate. In addition, he confirmed that it is acceptable for the Government to indicate that it cannot provide an answer or supplementary replies to questions already answered. As the Government had complied with the requirements of Standing Order 39(5),^[3] the Speaker concluded that it was not a prima facie question of privilege. The Speaker invited the Member to raise her concerns about the process of written questions with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 28, 2012, by the Member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie concerning the Government’s response to written question Q-410.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for having raised this matter and the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his intervention.

For the benefit of Members, the Chair would like to review the events that led to this question of privilege.

On March 14, 2012, the Member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie rose on a point of order to argue that the Government’s reply to her written question Q-410, which had been tabled in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on March 12, 2012, and can be found at page 6088 in Debates, was insufficient. She stated that the reply did not fully answer all the questions and did not contain the detailed information she had requested.

Noting that the response stated more information would be forthcoming and that there were only two days remaining before the expiry of the 45-day limit for a response to her question, the hon. Member asked if the Government would be providing a more complete response before the expiry of the time limit. The Parliamentary Secretary replied that the Government had already responded within the appropriate time, that the answer was self-explanatory and that additional information would be forthcoming.

In raising a question of privilege on March 28, 2012, the hon. Member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie again argued that the answer provided by the Government was, by its own admission, incomplete. Noting that the response did not address the specific sub-questions she had submitted, she added that the Government had failed to provide any additional information by the expiry of the deadline on March 16, 2012. She also took exception to the March 14 statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that more information would be provided by the Government in the future, insisting that she was not interested in additional “talking points” but rather specific answers to her specific questions.

Stating that “written questions are one of the tools that Canadians, via their elected representatives, can use to force the Government to be accountable”, the hon. Member claimed that the Government’s refusal to answer the question constituted a violation of her rights as a Member and impeded her in her ability to perform her duties. She therefore requested that the Speaker find a prima facie question of privilege.

Before I address the specific points raised by the Member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, it may be of some assistance for the Chair to provide a brief overview of our procedures with regard to written questions by looking at how they have evolved in the text of the rule governing them, current Standing Order 39.^[4]

Since the time of Confederation, the Standing Orders have contained provisions allowing Members to pose written questions to the Government. Over the years, the rules and practices dealing with such things as the number, content, and time and methods of responding to questions have been reviewed and modified. For example, prior to 1986, there was no limit to the number of written questions that a Member could place on the Order Paper and Notice Paper: it was not unusual for some Members to submit tens, and in one case, hundreds of written questions.

In 1986 the House adopted changes to limit to four the number of questions a Member could have on the Order paper at any one time, and to codify the right of Members to request that the ministry respond to their questions within 45 days.

In 2001, the House further amended the Standing Orders to provide that if a question was not responded to within the requested 45 days, the matter of the failure of the ministry to respond would be deemed referred to a standing committee for study.

It should also be noted that since the change limiting the number of questions a Member can have on the Order paper, there has been a notable increase in the length of the questions submitted. As noted on various occasions by Government spokespersons, the length of questions can, in turn, have an impact on the ability to provide an answer within the 45-day limit and may require considerable resources.

I think all Members would agree that Order paper questions are a very important tool for Members seeking detailed, lengthy or technical information that helps them carry out their duties. As is noted in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 520:

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”.

And further, at page 522:

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.

In the case before us, I can appreciate the Member’s frustration with the reply provided. That said, the authorities are clear: the Speaker’s role in such matters is extremely limited.

As pointed out by the Government House Leader, House procedure in these matters is clearly explained in O’Brien and Bosc, page 522 which states:

There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review Government responses to questions.

As my predecessor, Speaker Milliken declared in a ruling, delivered on February 8, 2005, page 3234 of Debates:

Any dispute regarding the accuracy or appropriateness of this response is a matter of debate. It is not something upon which the Speaker is permitted to pass judgment.

O’Brien and Bosc, at page 522, states:

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.

Then at pages 522 and 523 it summarizes how the Chair is guided by precedent in these cases, stating:

...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...

To that quote, I might add the word “complete”.

The hon. Government House Leader and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary have both indicated that the Government intends to present further material with respect to the Member’s question in the future. This is consistent with our practice as one can confirm on page 522 of O’Brien and Bosc, which states:

On occasion, the government has supplied supplementary...replies to questions already answered.

The original response to question Q-410 tells us that this is how the Government intends to proceed in this case, just as we have recently seen the Government provide such supplementary responses to other questions.

Accordingly, I must conclude that the Government has complied with the requirements of the Standing Order and therefore I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege.

However, the hon. Member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie clearly feels aggrieved by the insufficiency of the response she received. I would therefore invite her to raise her concerns about our practice with regard to written questions with the Standing Committee [on] Procedure and House Affairs as that Committee continues with its study of the Standing Orders. Indeed, as your Speaker, in light of the various complaints that have been voiced in the Chamber with regard to written questions, from both sides of the House, I would encourage the Committee to look closely at our current rules and to assess whether improvements can be made to our current practice to better serve the needs of the House and its Members.