Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

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

February 17, 2015

Debates, pp. 11264–5

On January 26, 2015, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard) rose on a question of privilege regarding the response to written question Q-393. She alleged that an access to information request proved that the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration obstructed the work of government officials in preparing a response to the written question. Furthermore, she contended that the response was a non-answer that impeded her in the performance of her parliamentary duties. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) argued that Ms. Blanchette-Lamothe was not raising this matter at the first opportunity and that, although public servants had made every attempt to provide the requested information, the question was too complex to be answered in the 45-day period prescribed by the Standing Orders. He added that it is acceptable for the Government to state that it cannot provide a response to a written question and that it is not in the Speaker’s purview to review government responses to written questions. Another Member made comments and the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1]

Resolution

On February 17, 2015, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He reiterated that the Standing Orders do not provide for the Chair to review government responses to questions, explaining that a dispute regarding the appropriateness of a response is a matter of debate. He also explained that it is acceptable for the government to state that it cannot provide a response. As he did not find that the Member was impeded in performing her parliamentary duties, he ruled that a prima facie breach of privilege had not occurred. The Speaker concluded by stating that the Member had other avenues and that she could resubmit her question without requesting an answer within the 45-day deadline.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on January 26, 2015, by the Member for Pierrefonds—Dollard related to the Government’s response to written question Q-393, which was given to the House on May 14, 2014.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Pierrefonds—Dollard for having raised this matter, as well as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the hon. Opposition House Leader for their comments.

In raising this matter, the Member for Pierrefonds—Dollard expressed concerns about the response she received to her question, Q-393. She argued that there was interference by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who, she claimed, ordered officials in the department to stop preparing a response and, instead, use the same answer that was given in response to written question Q-359 on May 12, 2014. She asserted that that answer constituted a non-answer to a question submitted by the Member for Markham—Unionville. Having received the same non-answer, she contended that this impeded her in the performance of her parliamentary duties since she was not provided with a satisfactory response to her question. From this she argued that a breach of privilege had occurred.

In response, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explained that it was the length and breadth of the Member’s very extensive question that was preventing departmental officials from being able to comply with the 45-day response deadline. Once advised of this, he provided the response that the Member received.

Members will be familiar with the provisions of Standing Order 39(5)(a),^[2] which states:

A Member may request that the Ministry respond to a specific question within forty-five days by so indicating when filing his or her question.

In essence, the Member is seeking redress with respect to perceived ministerial interference, which in her view, prevented departmental officials from responding to her question.

On previous occasions, the Chair has been asked to rule on issues related to the Government’s responses to written questions. In each instance, the Chair has sought to remind Members of the clear limitations of the role of the Speaker in this regard.

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.

Speaker Milliken also noted on February 8, 2005, on 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.

This applies as well when the Government indicates that it is unable to provide an answer. O’Brien and Bosc confirms this approach at page 522, where it 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.

How or why the Government chooses to provide such a reply, or non-reply as some see it, is not something to be questioned by the Chair. Nor is it for the Chair to question the decision of Members to ask for a response to a written question within a 45-day limit, as per Standing Order 39(5)(a),^[3] even when the question is lengthy and complex.

Specifically, as Speaker, I must assess the role the Government played in the preparation of responses within the limited scope that is granted to me by our practice and precedents. As I indicated in my ruling of April 3, 2014:

The Chair understands that the Member is not asking for 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.

In view of the particular jurisprudence cited by the Chair with regard to written questions, I cannot conclude that the Member for Pierrefonds—Dollard has been impeded in the performance of her parliamentary duties. Therefore, I cannot find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.

That being said, the Member for Pierrefonds—Dollard does have one other avenue she could pursue. She could consider resubmitting her question without requesting an answer within the forty-five day deadline, particularly in light of the Minister’s comments regarding the question’s length and complexity.

I thank honourable Members for their attention.