Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 50% of the vote.
Questions on the Order Paper February 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Government Response to Petitions February 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
Questions in the House of Commons February 5th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on motion P-20 introduced by the member for New Brunswick Southwest. The motion reads as follows, and I quote:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of any letters since April 1, 2001, from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and/or the Clerk of the Privy Council to Ministers and/or Deputy Ministers concerning answers to questions in the House of Commons.
I thank the hon. member for putting the motion forward. It allows us to highlight an important aspect of House business: the written question.
In the daily business of the House much attention is paid to oral question period where members have the opportunity to question ministers who must account for their activities under their portfolio. However also important to House business is the written question which has been part of the proceedings since 1867. Written questions allow members to ask ministers detailed technical questions that normally could not be responded to during oral question period. The practice promotes transparency of government and ensures ministers remain accountable to the House. It also enables members to be knowledgeable in policy matters they take an interest in.
The government recognizes the importance of the written question and has taken steps to ensure the effectiveness of the practice.
Last June, the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons recommended that questions that were left unanswered beyond the 45 day period be referred to the relevant standing committees.
In October, this House adopted the special committee's report. The changes to the standing orders have had the effect of strengthening the requirement for the 45 day period for answers to written questions.
There has been a significant improvement in the answers to questions within the time period since the changes were made to the standing orders of the House.
Although the hon. member's motion raises an important aspect of parliamentary practice, as the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader I cannot support the motion. The motion must be opposed because the letter requested by the hon. member is considered a cabinet confidence and therefore cannot be released.
Mr. Speaker, when the motion was put forward the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons informed you that the letter sought by the hon. member was considered a cabinet confidence. The government House leader therefore asked that the hon. member withdraw his motion. Mr. Speaker, when the government House leader replied to the motion he referred you to citation 446 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms , 6th Edition. For the benefit of the House I will read the citation. It states:
(2) The following criteria are to be applied in determining if the government papers or documents should be exempt from production:
(l) Cabinet documents and those documents which include a Privy Council confidence.
The criteria has been reproduced in chapter 10 of Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice from pages 402 to 404. The criteria dates back to 1973 when the government tabled in the House of Commons its views on the general principles governing notices of motions for production of papers. Although the criteria was not formally approved by the House, Marleau and Montpetit note that the principles have been followed in the House since they were tabled in 1973.
The principles are consistent with laws passed by parliament on the subject of cabinet confidences. For example, Section 69 of the Access to Information Act exempts cabinet confidences from being released under the act. Similarly, the National Archives of Canada Act states that approval from the Clerk of the Privy Council is required before the National Archives may have access to a cabinet confidence.
Section 69 of the Access to Information Act goes on to define a cabinet confidence. It includes:
d) records used for or reflecting communications or discussions between ministers of the Crown on matters relating to the making of government decisions or the formulation of government policy;
(e) records the purpose of which is to brief ministers of the Crown in relation to matters that are before, or are proposed to be brought before, Council or that are the subject of communications or discussions referred to in paragraph (d)--
Cabinet confidences play a fundamental part in the Canadian system of government. Cabinet solidarity allows ministers to be frank in private but supportive of the government in public. As a group ministers are held accountable to parliament for the government's actions. As a result it is essential to respect cabinet confidences so ministers can speak freely on issues as policies and proposals are developed and debated in cabinet. At the same time each minister must be held accountable for the decisions of the whole cabinet.
To close, the letter the member asked for is subject to cabinet confidentiality. Therefore I must oppose this motion.
Cabinet confidentiality is a fundamental part of our system of government, and a recognized part of parliamentary practices since 1973.
However the Government of Canada views the written question as a vital part of our parliamentary tradition. To this end the government has been very successful in providing timely responses to written questions in the House.
Mr. Speaker, as you will know, I stand in the House on a weekly basis and provide tabled answers from the government to the many questions that come from the opposition. I am pleased to be able to do that. I have the opportunity to review the questions in advance and see the detailed answers. Sometimes they are very thick and consist of pages and pages of lengthy and detailed responses.
This is a good practice and we should follow it. However let us keep in mind that there is a reason for cabinet confidences. They are an important part of our government system.
Questions on the Order Paper February 5th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Government Response to Petitions February 5th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
Questions on the Order Paper February 4th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Government Response to Petitions February 4th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
*Question No. 86— February 1st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
*Question No. 86— February 1st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), there was no environmental assessment report prepared by CIDA. CIDA contributed funding to an environmental impact assessment report prepared by AMEC E&C Services Ltd. CIDA sent its preliminary feedback on this report to AMEC and is waiting for more information from AMEC to continue its analysis.
In response to (b), CIDA has not incurred any costs for this dam. CIDA contributed funding to the environmental impact assessment mentioned above, in accordance with the terms and conditions of a contribution agreement signed between CIDA and AMEC.
In response to (c), CIDA did not play any role in this regard.
In response to (d), no financial relationship exists between CIDA and Fortis Inc.
In response to (e), CIDA has eight active contribution agreements with this firm, including the agreement mentioned above relating to the enviromental impact assessment in Belize. All of these contribution agreements are for engineering studies involving AMEC E&C Services Ltd. for power generation infrastructures in Sri Lanka, Jordan, Bolivia, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Turkey, except one supporting an industrial project in Jordan.
Starred Questions February 1st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 86. I ask that the question and the answer to Question No. 86 be printed in Hansard as if read.