The Daily Program / Routine Proceedings

February 8, 1999

Debates, pp. 11531-3

On December 8, 1998, after Oral Questions, John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond) rose on a point of order regarding the interpretation of Standing Order 39, which deals with questions on the Order Paper. More specifically, Mr. Cummins raised three problems arising from the Standing Order: the length of questions; the number of questions allowed and the length of time it takes the government to reply; and the difficulty in obtaining factual answers.^[1] After hearing Mr. Cummins’s remarks, as well as those of other members, the Acting Speaker (Ian McClelland) took the matter under advisement.

The Speaker ruled on February 8, 1999. He said that the appropriate procedure had been followed when the member was asked to divide a written question. He noted that the 45-day deadline posed problems for both sides of the House, but that the Chair has no power to intervene in this regard and that it was up to the House to review and amend Standing Order 39 if it so decided. Lastly, the Speaker recalled that the Chair cannot comment on the quality or factual content of the answers the government gives to questions. In conclusion, he said that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs might take the matter under consideration, and reminded the government that it is responsible for the quality and accuracy of its answers to questions on the Order Paper. If the government is unable to reply within the 45-day deadline, it should so inform the members.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am ready to make a ruling on the point of order raised on December 8, 1998, by the honourable member for Delta—South Richmond concerning questions on the Order Paper.

First of all I want to thank the member for raising the matter. I also want to acknowledge the contributions made by the honourable House leader of the opposition, the honourable member for Winnipeg—Transcona, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House.

If I may, I wish to express my appreciation to the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole who acted on my behalf to deal with the point of order raised at the time.

In his submission the honourable member for Delta—South Richmond presented arguments concerning three separate issues relating to questions on the Order Paper. These are: first, the length of the questions; second, the number of questions allowed and the length of time taken by the government to answer the questions; and third, as the member stated, “failure to receive factual answers”.

The honourable member brought up this matter as a point of order. For the benefit of all members and the listening public, a point of order is a question raised with respect to any departure from the Standing Orders or customary procedures either in debate or in the conduct of the House or committee business. In this case the member alleges that Standing Order 39 has not been properly complied with.

Standing Order 39 has several components. members may place up to four questions on the Order Paper and may request that the government provide a response within 45 days. In addition, this Standing Order gives the Clerk, acting for the Speaker, the authority to ensure that questions are concise and coherent and to order that certain questions be posed separately.

I will now address each of the three distinct issues submitted by the honourable member.

As the first point of his presentation, the honourable member alleged that his written question submitted on October 28 was refused because it was too lengthy. He argued that the Standing Orders do not provide the Clerk with any guidance on the division of questions and therefore there was no authority to divide his question. The member also reflected on the manner in which the question was handled by those responsible for the Order Paper.

Before I give consideration to the procedural dimension of this particular aspect of the point of order, I must take issue with the way in which the member expressed his frustration with the handling of his question. As so eloquently stated by my colleague the Deputy Chairman of the Committees of the Whole:

The people working for Parliament work for Parliament. They do not work for one party or another. They have a specific job that is mandated to them to make sure that the questions are in a form which may be responded to.

I want to assure all members that the staff of the House of Commons aim for the highest level of competence and professionalism in the services they provide to members in support of their parliamentary activities. Most importantly, I must attest to the impartiality of the Clerk’s staff. As I am sure all honourable members do, I have complete confidence in these employees and the way in which they discharge the important duties they have been assigned.

That being said, I will now tum to the procedural issue at hand, the dividing of a written question. Standing Order 39(4) limits to four the number of questions a member may have on the Order Paper at any one time. As pointed out by the honourable member for Winnipeg—Transcona, this rule has its origins in the 1985 report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, which is commonly known as the McGrath Committee.^[2]

In return, there was a provision that the government would, upon request, reply within 45 days. The committee expressed concern that members might try to circumvent the limit of four by submitting questions containing numerous subquestions. The McGrath Committee proposed that the Clerk should have the authority to reject outright or to split into separate and distinct questions those that contain unrelated subquestions.

I concur with my predecessor, Speaker Fraser, when he ruled on June 14, 1989, that although not explicitly outlined in the Standing Orders the Clerk must apply more rigorously the provisions of Standing Order 39(2) and have the authority to order certain questions to be posed separately, as was recommended in the McGrath report.^[3]

I have reviewed the question as originally submitted on October 28 by the honourable member for Delta—South Richmond and have found that proper procedures were followed and that the recommendations to divide his question were made according to Standing Order 39(2) and based on the precedents of this place.

The member contended that the length of his question prompted its suggested division. In my opinion this recommendation to divide the question was not an arbitrary one. The issue was not the length of the question but rather the fact that it contained unrelated subquestions. The subquestions may be linked from the member’s point of view but are in reality separate and distinct questions.

As with any interpretation of rules there is unavoidably an element of judgment involved. In this case judgment was properly exercised and, if anything, a certain latitude was given to the member.

Guided by the many years of practice in the application of this Standing Order dealing with the conciseness and coherence of Order Paper questions, House officials are always willing to assist members with the editing of their questions and to discuss with them or their staff any issue that may arise.

I will now proceed to the second issue raised by the honourable member’s point of order: the number of questions allowed and the length of time taken by the government to answer the questions.

The member stated that, by not answering his questions within the 45 days allotted by the Standing Orders, the government prevented him from asking questions due to the limit of four, and that his ability to ask a further question was thereby undermined.

The member raises a valid concern, one that has been raised many times in the past. However, the Standing Orders do not require the government to provide a response within 45 days. While the Chair sympathizes with the member, previous Speakers have ruled that there is no particular sanction that the Chair can use to force the government to meet this deadline. I refer members to the Debates of May 18, 1989, at page 1891, where Speaker Fraser indicated that:

—I cannot order the government to produce those documents or answers within 45 days—

Having said that, let me remind all members that there must be a balance between the requirements of the members asking the questions and the government which provides the answers. As I had remarked in my ruling on February 9, 1995, found in the Debates at page 9426:

It is incumbent upon all those involved on both sides of the process…to ensure that every care is taken so that these exchanges remain as fruitful and as useful as possible.

I would expect that the government would make every effort to respond within 45 days if so requested and that members would craft their questions in a manner to make this as likely as possible.

This having been said, the onus rests with the House to examine this rule and to make changes if it so chooses.

Moving now to the third item raised by the honourable member for Delta—South Richmond: the “failure to receive factual answers”. In particular, the member expressed dissatisfaction with the response provided by the government to his Question No. 91. This matter is essentially identical to the substance of the question of privilege he raised on May 27, 1998.^[4]

At that time, I had quoted from my previously mentioned ruling of February 9, 1995, in which I stated that:

There are no provisions in the Standing Orders for the Speaker to review government responses to questions posed.

I then also quoted from my predecessor, Speaker Sauvé, who stated on February 28, 1983, at page 23278 of the Debates:

It is not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate.

To summarize the Chair’s position on the three issues raised by the member, I find first that proper procedure was followed in the request made to the member to divide his question of October 28. Second, I also find that while the 45-day limit causes problems for both sides of the House, the Chair has no authority to intervene in this area and, third, the Chair cannot comment on the quality or the factual content of the answers provided by the government to Order Paper questions.

I would like to conclude by saying that this is not the first time the member for Delta—South Richmond has raised this issue, not only during this session but also in the last Parliament. It is obviously a matter he feels strongly about as evidenced by his well researched submission on December 8.

Members will recall that he alluded to the parliamentary practices of the United Kingdom and Australia with respect to written questions. Although I do not think it is relevant to the case he brought before the Chair, it would certainly be an area that may be of interest to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. As I mentioned previously, the Chair can only enforce the Standing Orders as they have been adopted by the House. However, pursuant to Standing Order 108 it is within the mandate of the Procedure Committee to review and report on the Standing Orders, procedure and practice in the House and its committees.

The member has the option of voicing his concern either through his party’s leader in the House, who is a member of the Procedure Committee, or to write directly to the Chair of the Committee.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the government that it is responsible for the quality and accuracy of the answers it provides to Order Paper questions. I would also like to point out that the government is free to inform members if the 45-day deadline will not be complied with-and I am inclined to encourage this approach considering it may reduce interventions that sometimes take up valuable time away from the business of the House. It would also give members the option to pursue other avenues to obtain the information they seek.

I thank the honourable member for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

P0306-e

36-1

1999-02-08