Madam Speaker, I have another response to a question of privilege. I am pleased to rise again today to address the question of privilege raised on October 30, 2018 by the hon. member for Milton regarding information granted through order paper question no. 1316.
In her intervention, the member listed the following grievances: That the response she received was a non-answer; that the said response breached Standing Order 39(1); and that these alleged breaches somehow impeded her ability to carry out her duties as a member of Parliament.
On the first point, let us be very clear. In her Order Paper question dated November 8, 2017, the member across the way asked for “the titles of all individuals who approved the tweet”. While the member may not like the answer she received, it does not change the fact that the response was duly tabled within the prescribed timelines and according to the rules of the House of Commons. The concept that the Speaker does not judge the quality of answers is well established.
Page 529 of the 3rd edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice indicates the following:
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 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”.
Moreover, on page 527 of the 3rd edition, it states that given that the purpose of a written question is to seek and receive a precise, detailed answer, it is incumbent on a member submitting a written question “to ensure that it is formulated carefully enough to elicit the precise information sought.” Therefore, a differently worded question could have yielded a different and perhaps more satisfactory response.
Let me turn to the discrepancy between the questions posed by the member and that posed by the journalist through the access for information requests. If we compare the wording of both the OPQ and ATIP question, the ATIP requesters and the MP asked two different questions. The ATIP requesters asked for “all emails and any other communications”, while the MP asked for “the titles of all individuals who approved the tweet”, for which the minister listed her own title as the one responsible.
As well, it should be pointed out that the minister never assigned blame in her communications in the House, in the OPQ response, in question period or in her online comments. She took full responsibility. It was a statement of fact that the tweet occurred on her departmental account and not her personal account. It was not an assignment of blame. The minister took the blame.
While the Conservatives may be interested in pointing fingers at public servants and political exempt staff, it is the minister who is accountable and she did what a minister is supposed to do and took responsibility, as the principle of ministerial responsibility dictates she must do.
Now, let us turn to the alleged breach to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. While the member alluded to this in her remarks, I fail to see how the answer contravenes Standing Order 39.1.
In her remarks, my hon. colleague across the way noted that the news articles pointed out that the government “also violated the timelines set out in the Access to Information Act. Now, that is not your problem, Mr. Speaker.” I agree with her, Madam Speaker. This is not your problem.
Notwithstanding the fact that in this case different questions were asked, the process for handling Order Paper questions and access to information requests are different. Order Paper questions are a request for information by members to the government, while ATIP questions are subject to statutory requirements and may be asked by any members of the public, members of Parliament, journalists or others. When questions are identical, the government ensures that there is as little discrepancy between the answers provided to the House for Order Paper questions and the answers to ATIP questions.
However, in this case, while the queries touched on the same subject matter, they asked different questions. That is why the answers were different. Therefore, I do not see how this constitutes a prima facie question of privilege.