Michelle Rempel on Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

With regard to the government responses to Order Paper questions (OPQ) and the information contained in the package released by Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) to Access to Information Request A-2022-00489: (a) since January 1, 2016 what instructions, definitions, directives, or other advice has the Privy Council Office (PCO) provided any departments, including those sent through the Parliamentary Returns Control Assistance System with the use or the development of (i) so-called “high-level limitation language”, a term used throughout Access to Information Request A-2022-00489, (ii) other means of not directly responding to each part of a question, and what are the details of each instance, including for each, the (A) date, (B) instruction, directive, or advice, (C) recipient, (D) relevant OPQ numbers; (b) are communications risks considered when departments develop responses to OPQs, and, if so, (i) what is the protocol, (ii) what measures are in place to ensure that Parliamentarians who submit OPQs receive responses that are complete and are not politically manipulated; (c) since January 1, 2016, what government-wide practices, protocols, or procedures have been developed to provide justification for not directly responding to each part of a question; (d) when the term “inherent risk” is used in relation to the use of so-called “high-level limitation language” or other means of not answering a question, what type of risk is being assessed; (e) on which other responses to OPQs in the 44th Parliament did (i) NRCAN, (ii) any other department or agency, strategize on how or if to use “high-level limitation language” or otherwise non-responsive language in a response to an OPQ; (f) for each instance where so-called “high-level limitation language” was used to avoid answering each part of a question, what was the reason for the non-answer, broken down by OPQ number; (g) did the Office for the Coordination of Parliamentary Returns in the PCO authorize NRCAN to use “high-level limitation language” to avoid directly answering any OPQs, and, if so, who authorized such as response, broken down by each question where such a non-answer was given; (h) what did Kyle Harrietha, the former Minister of Natural Resources’ Deputy Chief of Staff, mean when he wrote that the Speaker of the House of Commons is going to “tut tut”; (i) how was the “high-level limitation language” used in the government’s response to Q-974 arrived at, including who came up with the language that was used; (j) who decides when NRCAN uses “high-level limitation language” to avoid directly answering a question; (k) was the Minister of Natural Resources informed that he was signing an incomplete response prior to him signing the response to Q-974, and, if so, why did he sign the response; (l) what is NRCAN’s explanation for how multiple departments come up with identical language when using “high-level limitation language”; (m) who in the PCO, the Office of the Prime Minister or the Office of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was involved in the development of the template and language used in the response to Q-974; and (n) what was the rationale for using “high-level limitation language” in the response to Q-974 as opposed to directly answering the question?