I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 24, 2020, by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes concerning the government's response to written question no. 443, tabled during the first session of this Parliament.
During his intervention, the member argued that the details of the government's response with respect to written question no. 443 are not consistent with information published in an article by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. The member also explained that he had received clarifications from the National Capital Commission regarding the differences between the responses to the written question and those provided to the federation. He felt that these clarifications show “wilful muddying of language” on the government's part. In his opinion, “the government, by the very act of attempting to portray these two requests as different, has shown an attempt to deliberately mislead the House with its written response and is therefore in contempt of the House.”
In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that the information obtained by the member and by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation covers different periods. The parliamentary secretary also suggested that the figures obtained were misread and miscalculated. The parliamentary secretary feels that this is a dispute over facts.
In his intervention, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes rightfully mentioned the three criteria used to determine that the House has been deliberately misled, the first being to determine whether a statement made in the House is, in fact, misleading.
With regard to written questions, the simple fact that the Speaker must rule on whether the response is misleading de facto comes back to a decision on the content of the response. And yet, the Speaker is not able to rule on the accuracy of the government’s response to questions, oral or written.
We have numerous precedents on this matter. The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 529, could not be clearer, when it states: “There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.”
In this case, the Chair cannot conclude that there is a prima facie question of privilege.
I thank the members for their attention.