Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for Peace River—Westlock concerning the government's response to Order Paper Q-97.
Members well know that there are many precedents that support the notion that the Speaker is limited in his or her ability to judge the quality of the response to an oral question or a written question.
I can say with absolute certainty that the Standing Orders have been respected in the case before the House. The government tabled an answer to Order Paper Q-97 within the time provided under our rules.
On November 27, 2018, the Speaker ruled on a similar situation:
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.
This is precisely the situation with this matter. While I maintain that this does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege, the government is of the view that accurate information is to be provided to members who make such requests.
I would note that in the future when a member feels that information provided through other means does not completely align with the information provided through an Order Paper question, that the appropriate course of action might be to raise this issue with the parliamentary secretary or minister who provided the response.
The Conservatives are right to talk about the sanctity of this House and the great responsibility placed on members to respect the traditions and practices of this august Chamber. Surely no member would want to diminish the respect for this House by deliberately weaponizing questions of privilege and points of order to score political points.
If the member opposite really believes that his privilege has been abused, he could have simply raised this matter with the minister who provided the response. That did not happen. It rarely does happen, and that is unfortunate.
That said, I do believe that all members ought to have easy access to precise, relevant and complete information. As a result, I have asked the parliamentary secretary who provided the response to ensure that the member for Peace River—Westlock has the information he requested. His privileges rest on his ability to receive the information he has requested, not his ability to bring into question the government's motives.
I thank the members of the House for their indulgence in allowing the government to respond to this matter.