I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on Monday, December 13, 2004, by the hon. member for Delta--Richmond East concerning a reply to a question on the order paper.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East for raising this matter, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill for their contributions on this issue.
In presenting his case the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East charged that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans deliberately misled the House in responding to Question No. 5 on the order paper on December 8, 2004. In part (i) of his question, the member asked what diseases or parasites had been found in salmon net pens along the coast of British Columbia for each of the years 2000 to 2003 and the location of each farm where they had been found. The reply of the government tabled in the House on December 8 was as follows.
This information is collected by the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, whose veterinary services are responsible for aquaculture fish health surveillance and diagnosis.
As the hon. member noted in his submission, he had placed the question on the order paper “recognizing it was one that required detailed study by Department of Fisheries scientists because I wanted a scientifically accurate answer.”
The member stated that, following a request under the Access to Information Act, he had seen a draft of the reply to this part of Question No. 5, as well as internal departmental correspondence concerning the draft. The draft response explained at some length that the department did not compile this information. The internal departmental correspondence showed that the minister's office asked the department's officials to rewrite the response in a more positive way.
According to the member, the minister attempted to hide the truth and was therefore in contempt of the House.
Questions on the order paper are a very important tool in the hands of members. Their purpose should be to seek, through a precise, detailed formulation, precise, detailed information that will enable members to carry on their work.
There have been several occasions in the past where members have raised questions of privilege 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. I refer hon. members to page 443 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , where it states:
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 nor to “assess the likelihood of an Hon. Member knowing whether the facts contained in a document are correct”.
I would also like to refer members to the guidelines for replies to written questions, which can be found at page 443 of Marleau and Montpetit. These read:
The guidelines that apply to the form and content of written questions are also applicable to the answers provided by the government. As such, no argument or opinion is to be given, and only the information needed to respond to the question is to be provided in an effort to maintain the process of written questions as an exchange of information rather than an opportunity for debate. It is acceptable for the government, in responding to a written question, to indicate to the House that it cannot supply an answer.
From the discussion in the House and from the documentation provided to the Chair by the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East, I see no grounds to depart from the rulings given by my predecessors in dealing with comparable situations. It would appear that the government does not compile the specific information the member was seeking. In the reply to the question, the minister directed the member to the Government of British Columbia, where he might find the information he was looking for.
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.
I therefore find that there is no prima facie question of privilege. I thank the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East as well as those who contributed to the discussion on this matter.
Is the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East rising again?