Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Freedom from obstruction and interference: Government interference alleged in response to written question

April 3, 2014

Debates, pp. 4207–8

On March 27, 2014, Scott Andrews (Avalon) rose on a question of privilege with regard to the government’s response to written question Q-176. Mr. Andrews alleged that Rob Moore (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)) had interfered with the release of information pertinent to his riding, thereby impeding his ability to perform his duties as a Member of Parliament. He emphasized that he was questioning not the accuracy of the government response but rather the means by which the Minister had allegedly modified the internal departmental process as it relates to the gathering of information and the drafting of the response. Mr. Andrews further noted that, in the past, he had received detailed answers to similar questions. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) replied that the matter at hand was a debate over the adequacy of the response.^[1] On April 1, 2014, the Minister of State contended that the matter had not been raised at the earliest opportunity and that it was not within the Speaker’s purview to review the content of government responses to written questions. He disputed the claim that there was a significant difference between the manner in which Q-176 had been answered and the manner in which previous questions had been dealt with. The Acting Speaker (Bruce Stanton) indicated that the Speaker would take the matter under advisement.^[2]

Resolution

On April 3, 2014, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He confirmed that it was not the Chair’s role to judge the accuracy of government responses to questions or to delve into the internal departmental processes on written questions. Having concluded that he could not find that the Member had been prevented from carrying out his duties, the Speaker did not find the question to be a prima facie case of privilege.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 27, 2014, by the Member for Avalon, regarding the government’s response to written question No. 176.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Avalon for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon. Minister of State for their interventions.

In raising the matter, the Member for Avalon explained that the government’s response to written question No. 176, tabled on March 6, 2014, regarding projects approved in Avalon by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency constituted a different answer than those previously supplied to similar questions.

The Member stated that the accuracy of the information provided was not the issue; rather, he contended that by changing the departmental process by which information was gathered and responses made, the Minister was obstructing the release of information and thereby infringing on the Member’s ability to carry out his parliamentary functions.

In responding to the Member’s claim, the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that, in fact, an answer had been provided, but without the amount of detail or exact information that the Member sought. Thus, he felt that the complaint was actually a debate over the adequacy of the response. For his part, the Minister of State for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency explained in greater detail the response preparation process followed by his department over the past several years in responding to questions from the Member for Avalon.

The Chair has been asked on many occasions to weigh in on issues with respect to written questions. Through these questions of privilege, the Chair has had the opportunity to confirm for all Members the role of the Chair in this regard, as well as the practices and principles that govern written questions. Some of these bear repeating today.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states at page 522:

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

On February 8, 2005, Speaker Milliken, at page 3234 of Debates, made a similar point:

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.

On April 3, 2012, in my ruling on another question raised with respect to the government’s response to a written question, I reaffirmed this practice.

The Chair understands that the Member is not asking for a judgment on the accuracy of the answer provided. However, he is asking the Chair to judge the actions of the Minister and the effect these have had on his ability to function as a Member of Parliament. To do so would require the Chair to judge not only the content of answers provided, but also to delve into internal departmental processes past and present. Regardless of whether the department’s internal processes on written questions have changed or not, it remains beyond the role of the Chair to undertake an investigation into any such matter or to render any judgment on it.

The Chair’s role is limited to assessing the evidence presented in order to determine whether there has been interference in a Member’s ability to perform his or her parliamentary duties. In the present circumstances, the Chair can find no evidence to suggest that the Member has been unable to perform his duties.

I therefore cannot find grounds to rule this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege.

I thank the House for its attention.