NDP wants answers on Senate residency vetting process

The New Democrats are calling on House Speaker Andrew Scheer to wade into what has become a daily standoff in the Commons over the government's refusal to reply to questions on the Senate appointment process.

On March 23 two weeks before the trial of suspended Senator Mike Duffy on fraud, breach of trust and bribery charges got underway New Democrat MP Charlie Angus submitted a written parliamentary question seeking more details on the appointment process.

• Senate residency requirements get more muddied by PMO
• Duffy trial: Documents reveal PMO attempts to contain fallout
• Duffy never raised eligibility with PM, Conservative source says
• Grand taboo: Do senators meet residency requirement?

In it, he asked: "With respect to each Senate appointment made by Prime Minister [Stephen] Harper, did the government verify that each individual being appointed to the Senate met their constitutional residency requirement?"

He also wanted to know how, exactly, the government would "verify that each individual met their constitutional residency requirement."

The question did not mention Duffy or any other specific senator.

But on Friday, the government tabled a one-line reply, in which prime minister's parliamentary secretary, Paul Calandra, simply stated that the government "does not comment on matters before the court."

Non-answers 'now come in written form': Angus

That's the same response that both Harper and Calandra have delivered repeatedly in the House in response to oral questions on the vetting process.

"Calandra's non-answers now come in written form," Angus told CBC News via email. "At least he didn't respond to the question about Senate residency with an answer about pizza."

Angus lodged an official complaint Monday afternoon.

He told Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin, who was in the chair for the debate, that Calandra's written answer was "not credible," and suggested it had interfered with his ability to do his job as a parliamentarian.

"The Crown attorney has said clearly that eligibility.. is not a focus of the [Duffy] court proceeding they made it clear on the first day," he pointed out

"But the issues of who decides residency, and who decides the eligibility is the role of the prime minister and the Privy Council Office."

Angus warned questions over the credibility of "certain senators who may not be eligible to sit in the upper chamber" could damage the credibility of all levels of government.

"We should be learning from the government what due diligence they did to protect the integrity of our system," he argued.

"The prime minister's office needs to be able to explain what process was undertaken," he said.

"If the basis of residency is so clear it should be a simple, easy definition for the government to be able to tell the Canadian public how the issues of residency are determined, and who is eligible."

As such, Angus said, the "wholesale avoidance by the government to a straightforward written question" and the "misleading character of the answer" constitutes a prima facie breach of his privileges.

"The responsibility for this.. lies solely with the prime minister, and the government needs to respect the rules that we have put in place for parliamentarians to do their job."

'Proper response,' government says

But Government House Leader Peter Van Loan said the answer provided by Calandra was, in fact, entirely correct and "simply a restatement of the sub judice convention" that he believes applies in this case.

"I think all of us are aware from media reports, the question of Mr. Duffy's residence has been said by the prosecutor to be central to the case he is making, and we also understand from those media reports that there has been evidence let in that regard," he noted.

"There can be no question that is an issue that is before the court in a criminal proceeding. From that perspective, I think that actually, the response that has been provided is the proper response in this case. "

New Democrat House Leader Peter Julian was unmoved.

Speaking in support of Angus's complaint, he argued this was clearly an issue of public policy.

"For the government to try to pretend that any issue touched by the Duffy trial is something that they no longer have to answer as a matter of general public policy is simply absurd," he told the House.

The Speaker will likely hear additional arguments before handing down a decision.

But Angus may not want to get his hopes up.

This isn't the first time an opposition MP left unsatisfied by a written response has attempted to convince the Speaker to intervene on his or her behalf.

In his rulings on similar complaints to date, Scheer has consistently concluded that as long as the government meets the 45-day deadline, it's not his place to police the quality of a particular response.