Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention a problem relating to order paper questions. The problem can be categorized as follows. The first issue I would like to raise is the issue of the length of the questions. The second is the number of questions allowed and the length of time taken by the government to answer the questions. The third matter has to do with a failure to receive factual answers.
Mr. Speaker, your experience in this House and your wisdom can be of guidance in these matters. I would appreciate your comments.
On October 28 I submitted a written question. It was a question dealing with how the Gladstone decision of the Supreme Court of Canada had affected the management of the spawn-on-kelp fishery on the north coast of British Columbia. It was a detailed question.
A very general question might have elicited some of the same information, but there is no guarantee of that. For example, I might have asked: “How did the Gladstone decision affect the management of the spawn-on-kelp fishery?” But I did not. My question had a number of sub-parts that attempted to get to the details of how the decision is now affecting the spawn-on-kelp fishery.
The detail of the question was developed in conjunction with several of my constituents who are in the spawn-on-kelp fishery. All parts of the question involved this issue. All sought details. None involved any other fishery. None involved any other court decision.
When the question was submitted, House staff refused to put the question on the order paper.
I was anxious to have the question put on the order paper as soon as possible because local fishermen believed the answers could assist them in making recommendations to the government on the management of the 1999 fishery which begins in March. However, staff found the question too long. They requested that it be divided into five separate questions. At the time I had one spot for a question on the order paper.
After meeting with staff I was told that if it were divided into three separate questions they would put it on the order paper. Obviously their decision was arbitrary. It was not based on the standing orders. They agreed that the issue of division into separate questions only arose because of the length of the question.
I was told by staff that prior to the rule changes emanating from the McGrath report in 1985 which addressed such matters I could have put my question on the order paper as 26 individual questions as there would have been no limit to the number of questions.
Now we have the worst of both worlds. We have a four question limitation, but without the government responding within the 45 day period contemplated by the new standing orders. Further we have House staff who feel empowered and emboldened to arbitrarily refuse to put questions on the order paper because they consider them too long. The standing orders do not provide staff with any guidance on the division of questions.
The present standing order on written questions is a product of the McGrath report which had recommended a limit of four questions, with a requirement that they be answered within 30 sitting days. McGrath would have given the Clerk of the House the power to reject outright or split into separate and distinct questions those that contained unrelated sub-questions. The power to “split into separate and distinct questions those questions that contain unrelated sub-questions” was not given to the Clerk of the House in the present standing order, nor did the standing order adopt a 30 day time limit, instead opting for a weaker 45 day limit that did not contain a requirement to respond within that period.
McGrath had called for a requirement that the government answer within the 30 day time period. The only guidance available to staff is found in the McGrath report, but in a section that was not adopted. If it had been adopted it would not have given staff the authority to divide my question because my question does not in any way contain unrelated sub-questions.
I am concerned that staff may believe it is their job to arbitrate between the needs of government to have easy questions and the needs of members to submit thorough and, on occasion, detailed questions to elicit a detailed and informative answer. If staff have fallen into such a trap, and I believe it is possible they have, then they are mistaken and must be extricated from this trap quickly.
If staff require the authority to divide questions recommended by McGrath, then the House ought to look at the whole set of McGrath recommendations on written questions and make the necessary changes. We set a dangerous precedent when staff believe it is their job to protect the government and limit members' right to put forward written questions in a way that is not authorized or contemplated by the standing orders.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you review my question to ensure that it complies with the standing order and to ensure that staff have not misinterpreted their role.
On the second matter, the standing orders of this House indicate that no member may have more than four written questions on the Notice Paper at any one time. When the standing orders were changed to limit the number of questions that may be placed on the Notice Paper, it was established that members could request that questions be answered within a fixed period, 45 days. Thus, limitations were placed both on the number of questions asked and the days that could elapse before an answer was tabled. A reasonable balance was established.
The four in 45 rule was never intended to prevent members from asking questions yet that is what is happening. This is a misuse of Standing Order 39. It is being used against members. It is being used to prevent them from asking questions. If answers are not tabled, the member is prevented from asking further questions.
The Library of Parliament has reviewed the time it has taken during this parliament for me to receive an answer to Order Paper questions. None of the 10 questions I placed on the Notice Paper during this parliament were answered within the 45 days contemplated by the standing order.
Question No. 16 was answered in 64 days, Question No. 19 in 58 days, Question No. 33 in 195 days, Question No. 51 in 151 days, Question No. 56 in 161 days, Question No. 91 in 194 days, Question No. 103 in 137 days and Question No. 119 in 69 days. Of the eight questions answered, it took an average of 129 days to receive an answer, about two and a half times as long as anticipated by the standing orders.
In addition, I have two unanswered questions on the Notice Paper, Question No. 132 which was asked on September 18, 1998, about 80 days ago, and Question No. 138 which was asked on September 24, 1998, over 75 days ago.
By refusing to answer my questions in the 45 days allotted by the standing orders, I have been prevented from asking questions due to the four question limit.
When questions are not answered in a timely fashion as anticipated by the standing orders, members are prevented from asking additional questions. I do not believe that was the intended outcome of the parliamentary reforms following the McGrath report.
The reforms as reflected in Standing Order 39 were intended to facilitate members in asking questions and in receiving replies. Instead we have a situation where my ability to ask questions is undermined.
If answers require more than 45 days, I believe it would be appropriate for the government House leader or the government member responsible for tabling the answers to stand at the end of 45 days and report to the House on the reason for failing to answer within 45 days and to indicate when an answer could be anticipated. This could be done within the existing standing orders.
Australia has a similar practice. Its standing orders provide that if a question has not been answered in 60 days, the member may request the Speaker to seek reasons from the minister concerned. The Australian practice seems to work. In the Australian parliament the overwhelming majority of questions are answered within 13 sitting days, according to the Library of Parliament.
In the United Kingdom parliament the standing orders do not limit the number of questions for written answers a member may place and members may specify the day on which they would like the question answered. Questions are normally answered within one working week.
Perhaps the most effective way of protecting the member's ability to place questions on the Notice Paper would be to exempt from the four question limit those questions that go unanswered after 45 days. Thus, members would not be prevented from asking further questions.
If the answers to their existing questions have not been tabled within the 45 day period anticipated by the standing orders, I think it appropriate that the House look to the standing orders of Great Britain and Australia with a view to incorporating the best of those systems and ours. Certainly, having questions answered within one week would be most welcome by all parliamentarians.
Finally on the last point, on March 27, 1998 I asked Question No. 91. The answer tabled for Question No. 91 for the most part is not factual.
Written answers are placed on the Notice Paper so that the members may get the facts on a particular matter. When the answer is signed and tabled by a minister, there is a reasonable expectation that the answer is accurate as far as the minister can ascertain.
For example, Question No. 91 involved the purchase in September and October 1992 of some 69,000 mefloquine tablets by the Canadian forces under the authority of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study.
In Question No. 91(i) we find an answer that is obviously wrong. The response given to parliament said that in October 1994 the Department of Health first became aware through news reports alleging behaviour changes associated with the use of mefloquine—
