SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 323

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 3, 2024 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 323 - Jun/3/24
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.)
  • Jun/3/24 3:03:33 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will use the example raised by my colleague. Contrary to what he says, we are working with correctional services specifically to protect the safety of people who work in our correctional institutions. Along with my colleague, the hon. Minister of Public Services and Procurement, I had the privilege of visiting a model correctional institution precisely to talk with employees about improvements we can make to keep them safe at all times. I met with the union representing correctional officers. We are going to keep doing what is necessary.
91 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 323 - Jun/3/24
The Speaker
  • Jun/3/24 3:46:56 p.m.
  • Watch
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 8 by the member for Simcoe North, concerning the response to Question No. 2221. In his intervention, the member alleged that, through omission, the Minister of National Revenue misled the House. The member stated that he had asked for a specific set of information through Order Paper Question No. 2221, about overpayments of the Canada child benefit in the event of the death of a child. The corresponding response indicated that the information sought by the member was not collected in a way that permitted an answer to his very specific question. However, the member argued that he successfully obtained, through questioning of a government official at a recent committee meeting, the precise information that he had originally sought through his written question. This, he claimed, illustrated that the government did in fact have the information he wished to receive. He contended that the government attempted to frustrate his ability as a member to obtain factual information through the written question process. He argued that this qualified as a question of privilege that was worthy of examination by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The deputy government House leader countered that there was no intent to mislead the member for Simcoe-North or the House. He explained that the information shared with the member in committee differed from what was asked in question Q‑2221, which was about overpayments of the CCB in the case of a death of a child. However, he claimed that what the member asked in committee was a question about cancelled eligibility for the CCB. The government response that was provided to the written question addressed the issue of overpayments in the event of the death of a child, in as full a fashion as the data permitted. The deputy House leader concluded by asserting that the government answered the question that was asked, and that the response was accurate. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 529, describes the well-established precedent in which the Chair, and past Speakers have consistently responded to complaints about government responses to written questions, and I quote: There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions. Nonetheless, on several occasions, Members have raised questions of privilege in the House regarding the accuracy of information contained in responses to written questions; in none of these cases was the matter found to be a prima facie breach of privilege. The member for Simcoe North knows, as do all members, that the Chair does not parse the responses to written questions, nor judge their quality or delve into their content. The government did provide an answer to its question, though the member argues it was insufficient or incomplete. The member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa also complained about the substance of an answer to one of his written questions. While circumstances differed, the conclusion remains the same. The Chair is not empowered to review the content or the quality of answers provided to written questions. That said, the Chair would, once again, like to reiterate its expectation that the government, in responding to written questions, be as forthcoming as possible in providing members with the information they require to do their job. Members can always seek clarification about their original questions or ask for additional information by providing new written questions on the Order Paper or even by proposing to a committee that it study the subject of their written questions. Accordingly, the Chair does not find there to be a prima facie question of privilege. I thank all members for their attention.
623 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border