Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege, raised by the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard respecting order paper Question No. 393, is based on documents released by my department, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, under the Access to Information Act, on or about November 17, 2014.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, on page 143, offers this relevant guidance for us all. It states:
The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred....Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.
The hon. member effectively had a month prior to the Christmas adjournment to bring forward her issue. Nonetheless, her question of privilege also fails on its merits.
Mr. Speaker, as you have stated in the past, on April 3, 2012, at page 6857 of the Debates:
—there has been a notable increase in the length of the questions submitted. As noted on various occasions by government spokespersons, the length of questions can, in turn, have an impact on the ability to provide an answer within the 45-day limit and may require considerable resources.
If I may read out the question Mr. Speaker, and I will just summarize it, you will in fact see that Question No. 393 required a lengthy search of CIC records which was not feasible in the mandated timeframe. It states:
With regard to Citizenship and Immigration Canada : (a) what was the budget for processing visa applications between 2005 and 2014, broken down by...fiscal year...processing centre...international student visas...work permits...broken down in turn by temporary workers, live-in caregivers, business people, and students...temporary visas (broken down in turn by tourist, business, Super Visas, and transit visas);
Then it asks for the same information broken down in similar ways for: the budget for processing immigration applications between 2005 and 2014; the number of full-time equivalent staff allocated to each processing centre between 2005 and 2014; the average wait time for processing of visa applications between 2005 and 2014, broken down by similar distinctions; the average wait time for processing of immigration applications between 2005 and 2014; the budget for processing private sponsorship of refugee applications between 2005 and 2014; how many full-time equivalent staff were allocated to the processing of private sponsorship of refugee applications; and the average wait time for processing of private sponsorship of refugee applications between 2005 and 2014.
What was asked for were operational details down to the individual case for an entire decade of our department's work. Just one of those requests, and I noted that there were about 10 major headings in the request, would have involved the review and the analysis of 16 million items from the department's records. Therefore, it was clear to us, as I think it would be clear to you. Mr. Speaker, and to the House, that the 45-day limit would not have been met under any circumstances and that the reasonableness of this request, as with other requests, regrettably, that we have seen made by the opposition of late, is very much in question.
As minister, I rely on the advice of our hard-working public service to carry out my duties, including those mandated by the Standing Orders. The answers provided to the House by way of written questions are no different. Indeed, a full reading of the 70-some pages released under the Access to Information Act, rather than the narrow selection offered by just a few words, easily show that the 45-day response deadline for this very extensive question posed a challenge to a number of officials in the department. Despite this, those public servants made every attempt to provide the member with the requested information.
Due to the length and breadth of the question, the amount of time needed to research the information requested meant that the deadline imposed by the Standing Orders could not be met.
On page 522 of O'Brien and Bosc, we find the following statement:
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.
It was this practice that public servants invoked when advising me that they would not be able to provide an answer to this question within the mandated timeline, and it was on that advice that I provided the response to Question No. 393.
Furthermore, your role, Mr. Speaker, with respect to written questions is limited and clearly spelled out in O'Brien and Bosc. Also, on page 522, it clearly states:
There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.
A long line of Speaker decisions confirm this point, including most recently your ruling on April 3, 2014, at page 4207 of the Debates respecting order paper Question No. 176.
As such, I respectively submit that there is no prima facie case of privilege to be found here.
I understand that the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard may not be satisfied with the response provided. Perhaps the member will bear in mind Standing Order 39(5)(a) when filing written questions in the future, 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.
I, as minister, and the entire Department of Citizenship and Immigration stand ready to continue responding to any order paper questions, petitions, question period questions, access to information requests or other correspondence concerning the policies and programs that we deliver for newcomers and citizens on behalf of all Canadians.
