The Daily Program / Routine Proceedings

May 27, 1998

Debates, p. 7283

On May 27, 1998, after Oral Questions, John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond) raised a question of privilege regarding the answers provided by David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) to a question Mr. Cummins had placed on the Order Paper. Mr. Cummins claimed that the answers were completely or partially false, which in his opinion impeded the work of Parliament and of members of the House of Commons and was a form of obstruction bringing the House into disrepute.^[1] After several other members intervened, the Speaker ruled immediately.

Based on previous decisions on the same type of situation, the Speaker concluded that the case before him reflected a difference of opinion on the facts and thus could not be considered a question of privilege.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Of course I want to listen to any question of privilege and I do listen attentively. From what I heard today this is a dispute of the facts.

We have an honourable member saying he put a question in and he received an answer. The answer he received does not coincide with the facts that he believes he has.

We have the honourable government House leader, standing up and saying that to the best knowledge of whoever prepared this and to his best knowledge these are the facts as they are stated. You put the Speaker in a position where he becomes an ombudsman for a fact determination.

You mentioned a ruling that I made in 1994. I ruled also as reported at page 9426 of Hansard on February 9, 1995, when I said:

This is not the first time there have been disputes over replies to Order Paper questions or over the content of documents tabled by a minister. For example, I refer honourable members to three rulings, the first on February 28, 1983 at pages 23278 [and 23279] of the Debates; the second on February 21, 1990 at page 8618; the third on May 15, 1991 at page 100. I must point out, however, that in none of these cases was the matter found to be prima facie.

Speaker Fraser noted on May 15, 1991, in his ruling:

The honourable member has raised an issue which is not an unusual kind of issue to raise. The honourable member is not satisfied with the response given. The difficulty that is always with the Chair in these cases is that there are often very great differences of interpretation on answers given. It is not a question of privilege. It is a question of disagreement over certain facts and answers that were given.

The honourable member will know that I did listen to his arguments. I listened to the opposition whip and I listened to the government House leader. In my view this is surely a dispute over the facts but it is not a question of privilege.

P0304-e

36-1

1998-05-27