Mr. Speaker, I did not really want to interrupt, but there was a question of privilege raised earlier today. We reserved the right to respond to it, and I will provide a brief response. This was the question of privilege raised by the member for Mount Royal.

His question of privilege related to order paper Question No. 1229. At its essence, the hon. member really seemed to be raising a point of order, claiming that Standing Order 39(1) had been breached. The rule states in part:

...no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same...

The public safety minister's answer on the question that we are dealing with, he claims, is opinion. However, my view is that the answer is responsive to the question and the issues raised in his question. In view of the nature of the questions he raised, it would be impossible for the government to respond with anything other than the kind of response that was received.

The learned professor's question is expressed in some 819 words, I should point out, so I will only offer the Chair portions in order to save time. On five different occasions he asked, with regard to the program, “what was its objective”. Another five times, he asked “what was its outcome”. Twice, we can read in the question the following “what objectives was the government seeking to achieve”. Likewise, there were two requests for “how will the objectives...be achieved”. We also see in his question the phrase “based on what factors did the government decide”.

All of these read very much to me like questions probing for value-oriented facts.

To combine the opening words—or the chapeau, as it would technically be known—two of these questions ask:

With regard to funding for programs that facilitate the reintegration of offenders into communities following incarceration...what objectives was the government seeking to achieve...?

Why should it surprise the hon. member that the public safety minister answered, “...the government believes that dangerous sex offenders belong behind bars”? He is objecting that he got that kind of answer, but that is the very objective that the government is seeking to achieve, which he asked for in his question.

The hon. member for Mount Royal seeks value-based answers and he has been given in reply an answer setting out the government's perspective and policies. The perspective and that policy are facts. That is the government's position.

The answer continues, “That is why the government...”, and it goes on. It is quite clear that the opening of the answer is both responsive to his request for value-based answers but is also, with respect to the continuation of the answer, “necessary to explain the same”, to quote Standing Order 39(1).

The hon. member for Mount Royal might well dislike the government's policies and views on taking a strong line on sex offenders, criminals whose offences frequently turn on the abuse of vulnerable persons, but that does not mean he can start claiming that this statement of fact about the government's views is a violation of his parliamentary privilege.

In any event, other than establishing that I think that the statement has gone some distance to actually answer the question, the things he is complaining about are the very things he asked for.

I would go on to note that it is a commonly cited maxim here that Speakers do not have authority under our rules to judge the content or quality of responses to questions. What is more, it should not be a burden that we try to place upon them.

Pages 522 and 523 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice are often cited in the chamber for this proposition. They say:

There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions. Nonetheless, on several occasions, Members have raised questions of privilege in the House...; in none of these cases was the matter found to be a prima facie breach of privilege.

The hon. member for Mount Royal is effectively—and creatively, I might say—attempting to invent some new approach for you, Mr. Speaker, to do what you traditionally do not do, and I encourage you not to go there. Otherwise, this will be forever a rabbit hole, in which we are asking the Speaker to evaluate every aspect of every question. It will involve research into the programs, in a case like this, to find whether the programs really have these objectives, and whether he agrees with that or not.

He asked for these answers and he got them.

Another saying around here is that we are not to do indirectly what may not be done directly. That is, of course, what the member for Mount Royal is seeking to do with his point of privilege. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that you are on a very sound footing to simply dismiss the hon. member's complaint about the answer to Question No. 1229.

Peter Van Loan