Questions / Written Questions

Obligation to answer

Journals pp. 459-60

Debates pp. 4415-16

Background

On April 27 and 28, both Messrs Lambert (Edmonton West) and Irvine (London) raised questions of privilege claiming difficulty in obtaining adequate answers to their questions on the Order Paper. Miss LaMarsh (Secretary of State) had replied to their questions that the Government did not have at its disposal the information sought on the Electoral Boundaries Commissions because these bodies reported directly to the House. Mr. Lambert suggested that the Chair compel the Commissions to answer questions raised in the House regarding the conduct of their responsibilities. The Speaker ruled on both questions at the same time.

Issue

Can a Member's dissatisfaction with answers to questions on the Order Paper be raised as a question of privilege?

Decision

No. This matter should be raised as a grievance, not as a question of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The Speaker cannot compel the Commissions to answer the questions raised in the House regarding the conduct of their responsibilities. "A Minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal, and insistence on an answer is out of order, no debate being allowed . . . A Member can put a question but has no right to insist upon an answer." The Members may very well have a grievance which they could legitimately raise at the first opportunity. Should they care to do so, they might consider the advisability of placing a motion for the production of papers on the Order Paper, in which case it may be that the Governor in Council would produce the information sought through the Secretary of State who, under the statute, is the channel of communication between the Representation Commissioner and the Governor in Council.

Sources cited

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1966-76, ch. 2

Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 153-4, c. 181(3)

References

Debates, February 2, 1966, pp. 585-6; April 27, 1966, pp. 4370, 4382-3.