House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit

2000 Edition — More information …

11. Questions

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[101]: See, for example, Debates, October 28, 1997, p. 1235; October 29, 1997, pp. 1284-5; November 5, 1997, p. 1580; November 6, 1997, p. 1660.
[102]: Debates, November 6, 1997, p. 1662.
[103]: Debates, March 4, 1986, pp. 11168-9. In ruling on the acceptability of supplementary questions, the Speaker stated that “when a question is taken on notice, the Chair’s practice, which I think is reasonable, is to say that if that is what is being done then it does not make much sense to allow supplementary questions”.
[104]: See, for example, Debates, September 27, 1994, pp. 6217-8.
[105]: Debates, May 8, 1941, p. 2651.
[106]: Debates, May 28, 1943, p. 3126.
[107]: Journals, March 3, 1944, p. 151.
[108]: Journals, June 25, 1948, p. 680.
[109]: Journals, March 16, 1956, pp. 299-305; February 26, 1959, p. 172; October 31, 1963, pp. 509-13 (in particular p. 513).
[110]: Journals, April 14, 1975, p. 440.
[111]: Debates, May 17, 1984, p. 3832.
[112]: Debates, February 24, 1986, p. 10879.
[113]: Journals, April 14, 1975, p. 439. See also Debates, May 6, 1986, p. 13002; March 13, 1992, pp. 8189, 8192.
[114]: Debates, May 6, 1986, p. 13002; November 3, 1997, p. 1463.
[115]: Debates, May 6, 1986, p. 13001. See Debates, June 4, 1982, p. 18105, for an example of a question addressed to an Acting Prime Minister.
[116]: See Fraser, p. 125.
[117]: Speaker Francis stated in 1984 that another Minister may answer a supplementary question if the first Minister claims that that Minister is concerned with the subject matter of a question; the redirection must be clearly linked to the answer in the first question (Debates, May 17, 1984, p. 3832).
[118]: Debates, May 8, 1986, pp. 13081-2.
[119]: Standing Order 15.
[120]: A “roster system” of ministerial attendance for Question Period, modelled very loosely on the British House of Commons, was attempted by the Trudeau Ministry during the Twenty-Eighth Parliament (1968-72). The experiment was not a success and was abandoned with the Twenty-Ninth Parliament (1973-74) (see Stewart, p. 57).
[121]: In the past, Members have noted the absence of Ministers and the Speaker has reminded the House of the prohibition against commenting on the presence or absence of Members. Members have raised questions of privilege concerning the absence of Ministers during Question Period. On January 31, 1986, John Nunziata (York South–Weston) rose on a question of privilege following Question Period to argue that the absence of the Prime Minister affected his privileges because he was unable to pose questions to the government about a particular matter. The Speaker ruled that the government answers questions as a “collegial system of Cabinet responsibility” and that since the government was present during Question Period, no question of privilege existed (see Debates, January 31, 1986, p. 10348).
[122]: Debates, August 26, 1987, p. 8429.
[123]: Debates, October 10, 1962, p. 347.
[124]: Debates, May 8, 1986, p. 13082.
[125]: Debates, March 10, 1976, pp. 11669-70.
[126]: Debates, October 9, 1997, p. 735; March 25, 1999, p. 13513.
[127]: See, for example, Debates, March 4, 1988, p. 13420; February 12, 1992, pp. 6859-60; March 27, 1992, pp. 8937-8; October 6, 1994, pp. 6597-8.
[128]: Standing Order 37(3). Because the Adjournment Proceedings customarily occur at the end of the sitting day, the phrase “late show” was coined before the elimination of night sittings in 1982.
[129]: Standing Order 39(5)(b). This procedure is discussed in greater detail later in the chapter.
[130]: Standing Order 38(1). On occasion, no Members have risen to participate in the adjournment debate and the Chair has adjourned the House until the following sitting day (see, for example, Debates, February 28, 1995, p. 10181). On other occasions, after the motion was deemed moved, Members have risen on points of order to conduct different business or to ask for an extension to continue debate. The Chair has ruled that once debate on the adjournment motion has begun, the proceedings cannot be interrupted (see, for example, Debates, February 2, 1993, p. 15313). See also Debates, May 19, 1992, p. 10914; May 20, 1992, p. 10935.
[131]: Debates, April 27, 1964, pp. 2581-2.
[132]: Debates, May 7, 1986, p. 13048.
[133]: Journals, April 20, 1964, pp. 223-5.
[134]: Debates, April 20, 1964, p. 2342.
[135]: Debates, March 9, 1973, pp. 2075-6.
[136]: See Appendix “J”, Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, September 30, 1976, Issue No. 20, pp. 57-8; Journals, November 1, 1976, pp. 90-1.
[137]: Debates, November 8, 1979, p. 1081.
[138]: See the Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1982, Standing Order 45(1).
[139]: Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2909. Originally, the Standing Orders permitted debate to last no more than ten minutes for each topic. Under this time limit, only three topics were debated each “late show”. Members were permitted to speak no longer than six minutes, with the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary speaking in response for no longer than four minutes.
[140]: Standing Order 37(3) is quite clear that oral notice is not sufficient (see, for example, Debates, May 30, 1990, p. 12052).
[141]: See, for example, Journals, November 20, 1992, p. 2096.
[142]: Standing Order 37(3).
[143]: Standing Order 38(3).
[144]: Standing Order 38(3).
[145]: Standing Order 38(4).
[146]: Debates, May 11, 1993, p. 19297.
[147]: Standing Order 38(2).
[148]: Standing Order 38(5).
[149]: See Speaker’s ruling, Debates, February 11, 1970, pp. 3465-6.
[150]: Debates, May 15, 1964, p. 3301.