The Daily Program / Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions: lateness in the government’s response

February 8, 1993

Debates, pp. 15561-2

On February 8, 1993, Jesse Flis (Parkdale—High Park) rose on a question of privilege regarding the government’s responses to petitions. Mr. Flis argued it was unacceptable that nearly 300 days had elapsed between the time his petitions were presented and the government had provided responses. He maintained this practice violated the Standing Order stipulating that responses must be provided within 45 days after the petition had been presented. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) undertook to inquire into the reasons for this delay.^[1] The Speaker made an immediate ruling which is reproduced in its entirety below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The honourable member for Parkdale—High Park has raised a matter which has been raised before in this House. There is a rule as the honourable member referred to it and read it to the House.

With this kind of application which is an application to the Chair to find that the privileges of the honourable member have been breached because there has not been a response to a petition within the number of days set out in the rules, the difficulty is that there is no sanction in the rules. The Chair has had to say in the past that it is extremely difficult to come up with a lawful response.

I have said in the past and I hope I am not going to have to say it in the future, but I echo again what the honourable parliamentary secretary said. The rule is there and for whatever reason it has not been complied with. It was not put in there in the first place I am sure with the intention of not being complied with but as the honourable member who has brought the application knows, this is not the first time the Chair has had to deal with it.

The best way to deal with it at the moment is to accept the undertaking of the parliamentary secretary that he will make an inquiry—I hope it will be an immediate inquiry—and that he could raise the matter again perhaps some time tomorrow…

I want to assure honourable members that the Chair is not treating it other than as a serious matter. I am calling to the attention of honourable members that there is a rule. There is no sanction. It may very well be that it ought to be considered by honourable members and ought to be remedied.

In the meantime, with this particular case and keeping in mind the matter raised by the honourable member and the fact that clearly there is here a breach of the rules and the sensitivities of the honourable members and the sensibilities of the honourable member’s petitioners, I think the appropriate thing at least for today is to ask the parliamentary secretary to address the House tomorrow and see if there is some explanation at least. That may not fully satisfy the honourable member or honourable members, but at least for today that is where I would like to leave it.

The next day, Mr. Edwards apologized to Mr. Flis on behalf of the Department of Employment and Immigration for the considerable delay in responding to the petitions. Mr. Flis thanked Mr. Edwards and accepted his apology.^[2]

F0331-e

34-3

1993-02-08