The Daily Program / Routine Proceedings

Questions on the Order Paper: government declined to respond on the grounds of sub judice

February 4, 2019

Debates, p. 25212

On December 11, 2018, John Nater (Perth—Wellington) rose on a question of privilege regarding the government response to written question Q-2001 on the Order Paper. Mr. Nater stated that, in lieu of a response, he had received a declaration stating that the government respectfully declined to respond for reason of solicitor-client privilege. While Mr. Nater acknowledged that the Speaker could not rule on the accuracy of documents tabled in the House, he argued that the deliberate withholding of information from the House is an obstruction to members’ ability to perform their duties.^[1]

On January 28, 2019, Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) responded that it is the prerogative of the government not to respond to a question that is considered a sub judice matter. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Carol Hughes) took the matter under advisement.^[2]

Resolution

On February 4, 2019, the Speaker delivered his ruling. The Speaker explained that, in answering a written question, it is acceptable for the government to indicate that it is unable to supply an answer and that the Speaker’s authority to judge responses is limited as there are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses. Accordingly, the Speaker ruled that there was no prima facie case of privilege.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on December 11, 2018, by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington concerning the government response to written question Q-2001. I would like to thank the member for having raised the matter, as well as the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for his comments.

In raising this matter, the member for Perth—Wellington explained that, in response to his written Question No. Q-2001, the government had indicated that:

…a response could disclose personal and solicitor-client privileged information. Therefore, the Government must respectfully decline to respond.

This, he argued, amounted to the government boldly refusing to answer the question and, hence, should be considered as a deliberate defiance of the authority of the House.

For his part, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader contended that, as it is the prerogative of a minister to refuse to answer a question that is considered a sub judice matter, this was simply a matter of debate.

As explained in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 529:

As with oral questions, it is acceptable for the government, in responding to a written question, to indicate to the House that it cannot supply an answer.

Speaker Lamoureux had also addressed this in a ruling on May 5, 1971, at page 5515 of the Debates, when he stated:

It is correct, of course, to state as a general principle that a member should not be impeded in the discharge of his parliamentary duties. I suggest that this in itself does not create an obligation on the part of the government to supply any and all information sought by a member, either by way of an oral question or a written question.

Additionally, the authority accorded to the Speaker to judge responses is limited. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 529, is clear on this when it states:

There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.

Accordingly, I do not find that there is a prima facie question of privilege.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

Editor’s Note

Although Mr. Nater had given notice of his intention to raise a question of privilege, he failed to indicate the substance of the matter in his letter to the Speaker. Thus, before allowing Mr. Nater to proceed, the Speaker reminded members of the rules that apply when raising a question of privilege, including the necessary elements of a written notice. The Speaker then permitted Mr. Nater to raise his question of privilege, with the expectation that members should follow the rules in the future.^[3]