PrivilegeWatch: Speaker Scheer and the Case of the "Effectively a Non-Answer to an Order Paper Question"

Two weeks ago, Liberal MP Irwin Cotler rose in the House to express his frustration with the government's now seemingly habitual tendency to respond to Questions on the Order Paper with substance-free talking points.

In this case, he had asked the finance minister what would seem to be a fairly simply question: In the process of drafting the most recent budget, with how many groups and organizations did the Department of Finance consult, and of those groups, how many were represented and/or led by women?

"The answer I received to these questions states that the department and minister sought, and I quote, "the input of countless individuals and groups of both genders," Cotler informed the House, which, in his view, wasn't actually an answer at all:

"While we could quibble about whether the word "countless" is an appropriate response to the question of "how many" groups the Department of Finance consulted, there is no way anyone can argue that the word "countless", even with "both genders" added, is in any way a response to the question of "How many of the groups were represented by women?", and even more specifically, "How many of the groups were led by women?" There simply is no answer in what I received."

"Simply put," Cotler concluded, "this House cannot allow situations where the government puts whatever words it wants on a page and deems that an acceptable response regardless of the question. All hon. members would agree that there has to be some correlation between the question and the response."

If the government's reply was allowed to stand unchallenged, he warned his colleagues, "it would make a mockery of our written questions process."

The speaker's response, delivered earlier today, which can be summarized as follows: "Well, you got an answer, didn't you?":

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on June 7, 2012, by the Member for Mount Royal (Mr. Cotler) concerning the Government's response to written question Q-588.

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 (Mr. Van Loan) for his intervention.

The hon. Member for Mount Royal claimed that the response provided to Q-588 was so insufficient and incomplete as to constitute a non-answer. He took care to differentiate this case to a similar one on which I delivered a ruling on April 3, 2012, by noting that the government had given him no indication of an intent to provide further information. The lack of correlation between the question and the response caused the hon. Member to ask the Speaker to refer this failure to respond to the Standing Committee on Finance, as per the Standing Orders.

The Government House Leader pointed out, that given the difficulties in providing the information requested, the information, although using general terminology, was actually quite accurate.

As Members know, objections about the quality of the responses to written questions have been raised numerous times in the past. My predecessors have invariably pointed out to theHouse that it is not the role of the Chair to judge the quality of the responses provided by the Government. The Member for Mount Royal himself acknowledged this, in referring to my ruling of April 3 which can be found at pages 6856 to 6858 of Debates, in which quoted a ruling on February 8, 2005:

(quote) "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." (unquote)

Furthermore, there is a passage in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, which has been quoted by previous Speakers when addressing similar concerns about written questions, and which bears repeating. At pages 522 and 523 it states:

(quote) "There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review Government responses to questions (...). 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..." (unquote)

With regard to the Member's written question, he indicated when he placed it on notice that he was requesting a response within forty-five days, pursuant to Standing Order 39(5)(a). Under the provisions of paragraph (b) of the Standing Order, if a question remains unanswered -- that is, if no response has been tabled --at the expiration of the requested 45-day period, then (quote) "
the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond shall be deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee " (unquote).

Under the terms of the Standing Order, the failure of the Ministry to respond to a question applies only if the Government fails to provide any reply at all within the stipulated deadline.

Although the Member for Mount Royal may feel that the content of the Government's answer to Question No. 588 constitutes a failure to respond, the Government did, in fact, table a response on June 4, 2012, within the requested 45 days, and thus complied with the basic requirements of the Standing Order.

Therefore, the remedy he is seeking is not applicable in this instance, and the Chair cannot unilaterally refer this matter to Committee.

I thank all Members for their attention on this matter.