Access to information is about more than access requests. Given the impact of Bill C-4 Part 4 we thought it prudent to employ every tool at our disposal. Appearing on the House of Commons Notice Paper No. 84 and Order Paper and Notice Paper No. 85 is an important Question – Q-865.
We want to thank Green Party MP Elizabeth May who represents Saanich Gulf Islands. Her and her office staff worked with us and other members of civil society including The Centre for Digital Rights to draft this question for the Order Paper. She is one of the lone voices in the commons voicing opposition to Bill C-4 Part 4 and that deserves recognition. The Green Party and the Bloc Québécois are the only federal political parties who are NOT seeking exemption from BC Privacy Law.
Given the situation and votes in the commons it is reasonable to ask any member of parliament for the Liberal Party, The Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party why they voted to place their parties’ interests ahead of Canadian civil rights in Bill C-4 Part 4.
Q-865, 45th Parliament, 1st session
Open this accordion to view the text of the question or follow the link to Q-865.
With regard to election security and the amendments made to the Canadian Elections Act, as proposed in Part 4 of Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure:
was the initial decision to pursue the amendments made in response to
the ongoing litigation proceeding in British Columbia regarding whether federal political parties are subject to provincial privacy legislation,
the decision of Delegate Loukidelis dated March 1, 2022,
the decision of Justice Weatherill of the British Columbia Supreme Court dated May 14, 2014,
the British Columbia Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s pending investigation of the federal political parties;
what are the details of how the initial decision to pursue the amendments to the Canadian Elections Act was made, including
the date on which the policy direction to pursue these amendments was first approved,
the ministers, ministerial offices, departments or central agencies that authorized proceeding,
whether the amendments were developed in response to concerns related to election integrity, foreign interference, or data-driven campaign practices,
why the similar amendments already made to the Canadian Elections Act via Bill C-47, from the first session of the 44th Parliament, were considered inadequate;
what are the details of the policy development pathway, including
summaries of any briefing notes, options analyses, or interdepartmental memoranda,
identification of any alternative approaches that were considered and rejected,
any consideration of options that would have subjected political parties to independent privacy oversight or enforceable data-protection standards;
which actors influenced the final approach adopted and how, including
the names of any political parties, campaign organizations, data-analytics firms, or other external advisors, that provided input,
the nature of each actor’s input,
which, if any, of these actors raised concerns regarding data access, targeting capabilities, or regulatory constraints;
was the lack of independent cybersecurity oversight identified as a potential national security risk;
were any independent officers of Parliament or oversight bodies, including the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, or officials responsible for election-security and foreign-interference mitigation, consulted, and if not, why; and
is the government doing anything to address the concerns raised by the Commissioner of Canada Elections, in their brief submitted to the Standing Committee on Finance on October 20th, 2025, including concerns about
lack of enforcement powers,
lack of resources to enforce the provisions,
lack of clarity regarding the provisions’ scope?
What is a written question
Different from oral questions in question period, written questions on the Order Paper are a useful tool that Canadian parliamentarians can, and do use, to compel answers in legislatures from Government. They are drafted within procedural guidelines, submitted by parliamentarians, reviewed by the clerk’s office and published on the record. In parliamentary procedure, responses are time bound. While they do not necessarily compel response, lack of response can lead to parliamentary repercussions.
A dual strategy
In Canada, there are two distinct transparency tools available to Parliamentarians and the public — and they are often used separately.
They do not need to be and work well together.
A coordinated strategy that combines Written Questions on the Order Paper with Access to Information (ATI) requests is far more powerful than either tool alone. When used together, they expose not only what records exist, but also how decisions were made, who influenced them, and what risks were acknowledged or ignored.
Two tools. Two different questions.
At a structural level, the tools do different work
Access to Information asks: “Can the public see this record?”
Order Paper questions ask: “How was this decision made, who influenced it, what risks were known, and what was ignored?”
ATI is statutory. It governs document release. Order Paper questions are constitutional. They compel explanations to Parliament. Understanding that distinction is critical. Used together, they transform transparency from passive disclosure into active democratic oversight.
Why Order Paper questions are uniquely powerful.
Written questions placed on the House of Commons Order Paper allow Members of Parliament to reach areas that ATI often cannot:
Cabinet confidences (excluded from ATI)
Advice to ministers and legal risk assessments (frequently withheld)
Central agency coordination records
Decision rationales and rejected options
Identification of who influenced the outcome
An ATI request may produce heavily redacted pages. An Order Paper response must provide a narrative explanation — on the public record, in Hansard. That creates institutional accountability.
Why ATI still matters.
Order Paper questions compel disclosure of:
Dates
Authors
Decision points
Named officials
Identified risks or harms
Once those details are established in Parliament, ATI requests can then be precisely targeted to:
Specific briefing notes
Identified risk assessments
Named consultations
Correspondence between known actors
In other words: Order Paper establishes existence. ATI tests and produces the documentary record.
Considerations in drafting
Sourced from: Parliament of Canada – Procedural Info – Standing Orders of the House of Commons — Consolidated version as of June 5, 2025 – Questions
Written Questions
If a question intended to obtain information from the ministry involves a lengthy, detailed or technical response, a written question must be placed on the Order Paper. A member must give 48 hours’ written notice of their intention to submit such a question. Each member may have a maximum of four questions on the Order Paper at any one time. Written questions are assigned numbers when they are submitted (e.g., Q-1, Q-2).
A written question is acceptable if:
it satisfies the general guidelines for oral questions;
it is coherent and concise; and
its subject matter pertains to public affairs.
The member giving notice of a written question may request:
an answer within 45 days;
that an oral answer be provided during Routine Proceedings to no more than three of their questions, which are indicated by a distinctive symbol on the Order Paper, referred to as “starred questions”.
Should a written question not be answered within the required 45 calendar days, the failure of the government to respond to the question is automatically referred to a standing committee selected by the member who posed the question. Alternatively, members may decide to take the matter up during Adjournment Proceedings. If a member chooses to proceed in this way, the reference to the committee is dropped.
Government Replies to Written Questions
Replies to written questions are provided during Routine Proceedings under the rubric Questions on the Order Paper. When Questions on the Order Paper is called, a minister or a parliamentary secretary announces which question(s) the government intends to answer on that day.
The government may answer written questions in one of two ways:
In the case of questions requiring lengthy or more complex responses, the government may request that the House make a certain question an order for return. If the House grants the request, the return is tabled in electronic format immediately and becomes a sessional paper—an official document of Parliament.
The parliamentary secretary may simply indicate to the House the number(s) of the question(s) being answered. The text of the full response is then published in the Debates of the House of Commons of that day.
What might occur in response
Sourced from: Parliament of Canada – Procedural Info – Historical – House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, 2017 Questions – Written Questions – Questions Not Responded to Within 45 Calendar Days
Questions Not Responded to Within 45 Calendar Days
When placing questions on notice, Members usually request that the Ministry respond within 45 days, that is, within 45 calendar days of the question’s inclusion on the Order Paper. If a written question has not been answered within the required 45-day period, the failure of the government to respond to the question is deemed referred to the standing committee selected by the Member in whose name the question stands. The question is designated on the Order Paper as “referred to committee”. The Chair of the committee is required to convene a meeting within five sitting days; the committee may then investigate the failure of the government to respond to the written question, and report back to the House. However, the committee is not obliged to report back to the House, or to follow any specific procedure in considering the matter. On occasion, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister responsible for tabling the response has been invited to appear before a committee to explain the delay; departmental officials have also appeared. If the response to the written question has been tabled in the interim, or if the committee has been advised that the tabling is imminent, usually no further action is taken. The question remains on the Order Paper designated as “referred to committee”, which allows the Member to submit an additional question; however, the Member is still restricted to a maximum of four “non-designated” questions at any one time.
If the Member does not wish to have the question transferred to committee, the Member may rise in the House during Routine Proceedings under the rubric “Questions on the Order Paper” and give notice of his or her intention to have the subject matter of the question transferred to the Adjournment Proceedings. The question is then removed from the Order Paper, and the order for referral to a committee is dropped. This procedure also allows Members to submit an additional question for placement on the Order Paper. While the Standing Orders do provide for the government’s failure to respond to a written question within 45 days to be referred to committee, the Ministry is nevertheless not obliged to reply within this time. Members have raised this complaint in the House on numerous occasions. In these discussions, the Chair has indicated that it has no power under the rules to order the government to produce an answer within the allotted 45 days.
References
Current – House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition, 2025 Edited by Eric Janse and Jeffrey LeBlanc Chapter 11 Questions
Parliament of Canada – Procedural Info – Historical – House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, 2017 Questions – Written Questions – Questions Not Responded to Within 45 Calendar Days
You help us fulfill our mandate and stay independent. Every contribution – big, small, one-time, or recurring – makes a difference. Click here to donate.
