SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:27:35 p.m.
Watch

I want to indicate that I get the hon. member's point and I will take the information under advisement. I want to remind members who are getting up on this point of order that our precedents are clear that it is not for the Chair to rule on the content of the responses to written questions. Indeed, in a ruling on a similar matter, on April 25, 2022, at page 4310 of the Debates, the Chair stated: The Chair is of the view that ruling on the completeness of responses to written questions is tantamount to ruling on their content, and that is not the Chair's role. Therefore, although the hon. member is mentioning that the information was different, he may not like the information that he received, but he did receive a response. I will go to another point of order if the hon. member is finished. If he wants to continue on with respect to the information he just provided, as I indicated, he may not have been satisfied with the information he received, but it is very clear that it is not the responsibility of the Chair to rule on the information he has received. I would ask the hon. member to wrap it up, please, because points of order and questions of privilege need to be succinct and to the point and should not drag on. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

240 words

Context: House Hansard - 206 - Jun/5/23

Mr. Damien Kurek

Jun/5/23 12:29:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely. Personally, I would not want to drag it on. I would just point to Standing Order 19 on points of order, which indicates the effort of being succinct certainly when addressing these fundamental questions we have before us. There are three specific questions. To ensure that I am in fact succinct, I would simply reference specifically the other two questions I am calling the Chair to look at, not just with respect to the government having provided a response, but as to whether or not that response was satisfactory. With respect to the work we do within this place, it is fundamentally important that Canadians can trust the information that is provided. Therefore, this has far less to do with whether I am satisfied with the response, as that is not even relevant to the discussion, but about the government hiding behind procedure and the ability to simply reply by saying it cannot reply, or in some cases it simply seems like it is not willing to do the work. I would refer you to Question No. 286, signed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. There is a very clear unwillingness on behalf of the ministry to provide information. Again, it is not that I am dissatisfied with the answer, but the fact that it seems there is an unwillingness on the part of the government to provide any information related to the substance of the question. I may not like the answer, but it is not the responsibility of the government to decide whether or not it likes the question. I would further refer you to Question No. 565, signed by the then parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, which has to do specifically with the work that is being done at the ethics committee, of which I am a part. The issue is not whether I agree with the substance, but that the government seems to be using the 45-day timeline requirement to simply not table a response in this place. It can then wash its hands of anything to do with those important questions that, in some cases, my constituents bring forward, like I referenced with—

374 words

Context: House Hansard - 206 - Jun/5/23

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Jun/5/23 12:31:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I just want to respond to the deputy House leader's assertion that I did not like the response. For your information, and for that of the table staff who are perhaps providing you information, the point is that the government said that it could not respond to the question in the time allotted. Therefore, it has stated that it could not respond. Whether or not I like that or the government likes that is immaterial; the reality is, the government, by its own admission, said that it could not respond to the question in the time allotted. Ergo, the question remains open. Ergo, the Standing Orders have been violated, and I ask you to review that similarly.

128 words