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

[151]: Standing Order 38(5). In December 1997, the House adopted a motion to extend the Adjournment Proceedings by 12 minutes to permit debate on seven topics (see Journals, December 9, 1997, p. 366; Debates, pp. 2954-5).
[152]: See Journals, June 8, 1994, p. 545; June 10, 1994, p. 563. See also the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House on June 8, 1994.
[153]: Standing Order 52(12).
[154]: Standing Order 83(2).
[155]: Standing Order 2(3).
[156]: Standing Order 33(2).
[157]: Standing Order 98(3) and (5). This Standing Order has not been invoked since its adoption in 1986.
[158]: Standing Order 81(17) and (18)(b).
[159]: Standing Order 27(1). See, for example, Journals, June 5, 1996, p. 490; June 12, 1996, p. 546.
[160]: See transcript of the meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of May 3, 1994, p. 18. The time the Adjournment Proceedings are to commence would not be known in this case. The Speaker would still announce the matters to be raised that day (or the announcement may have already been made) but if Members fail to proceed with their questions, the Adjournment Proceedings lapse. See, for example, Debates, May 4, 1995, pp. 12211, 12216, 12235; March 13, 1997, pp. 9036, 9044, 9058.
[161]: See, for example, Journals, November 26, 1992, p. 2242; March 18, 1996, p. 104.
[162]: See, for example, Debates, November 6, 1990, p. 15236.
[163]: See, for example, Debates, November 17, 1969, p. 920; June 29, 1981, p. 11070; December 5, 1991, p. 5892; June 2, 1992, p. 11283; October 6, 1997, p. 567; December 10, 1997, pp. 3064-5.
[164]: Debates, June 13, 1986, p. 14372; March 5, 1987, p. 3882; December 9, 1997, p. 3018. See also Debates, April 2, 1998, pp. 5743.
[165]: Debates, April 30, 1964, pp. 2799-802.
[166]: In 1983, the Chair allowed a Member to rise on a point of order to apologize for unintentionally impugning the character of another Member (Debates, July 19, 1982, pp. 19490-1). In 1986, the Speaker permitted a Member to rise on a point of order when confusion arose over which question was to be answered that day (Debates, November 3, 1986, p. 1033).
[167]: Standing Order 39(1).
[168]: Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule No. 29.
[169]: Bourinot, 1^st ed., p. 321.
[170]: See Standing Order 39(3), (5), (6) and (7).
[171]: Debates, May 31, 1895, cols. 1882-3.
[172]: Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1876, Rule No. 25.
[173]: Debates, September 16, 1896, cols. 1303-4. This change was made at the direction of the Speaker and was not formalized into the rules. A written question would be read if any Member so requested (Debates, March 21, 1900, cols. 2367-97).
[174]: Debates, July 10, 1906, cols. 7602-3.
[175]: Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1906, Rule No. 31.
[176]: Debates, April 29, 1910, cols. 8367-9.
[177]: Debates, July 17, 1963, p. 2295. Until then, when the House reached “Questions on the Order Paper”, the Speaker called each question in turn with the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary interrupting occasionally to say “Answered” when they wished to send an answer to the Table (Stewart, p. 65).
[178]: Standing Order 39(4).
[179]: Standing Order 39(3)(a).
[180]: Standing Order 39(5)(a). See Journals, February 6, 1986, pp. 1653-4; February 13, 1986, p. 1710. This was to prevent the practice of placing numerous questions on the Order Paper and consequently lengthy delays in the provision of responses.
[181]: Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905, 2909-10.
[182]: See list of restrictions published in successive editions of Bourinot and Beauchesne.
[183]: Journals, March 30, 1965, pp. 1191-4, in particular pp. 1193-4.
[184]: See Beauchesne, 6^th ed., pp. 124-6, which lists numerous restrictions covering the form and content of questions.
[185]: Journals, March 30, 1965, pp. 1193-4.
[186]: Standing Order 39(1) and (2).
[187]: Standing Order 39(2).
[188]: See Debates, February 9, 1995, pp. 9425-7, in particular p. 9426. Speaker Parent was responding to a question of privilege raised in regard to a reply to a written question which a Member felt was inaccurate. The Speaker ruled that it was a matter of interpretation of the wording of the question placed on the Order Paper.
[189]: Standing Order 39(2). See Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, February 8, 1999, pp. 11531-3, in particular p. 11532.
[190]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 313.
[191]: Standing Order 54.
[192]: Standing Order 39(3)(a).
[193]: Standing Order 39(3)(a).
[194]: Journals, January 13, 1910, p. 154. See, for example, Debates, March 14, 1956, p. 2124; May 3, 1993, pp. 18822-3; February 11, 1998, p. 3740. The authorities in the Privy Council Office co-ordinating responses are informed when questions are withdrawn.
[195]: Standing Order 30(3).
[196]: See, for example, Debates, May 15, 1989, p. 1694; May 14, 1990, pp. 11372-3. The text of the question and of the answer appears in the Debates of that day.
[197]: Although the practice is almost invariably to deem a starred question answered orally, the Speaker, in response to a point of order, indicated that, strictly speaking, the rule requires oral responses to be given to written questions and must be observed unless it is the disposition of the House to dispense with this procedure (Debates, May 24, 1989, p. 2102). If a starred question is deemed answered orally, the text of the answer is printed in the Debates as if the Minister to whom the question was directed had actually stood in the House and given a full reply.
[198]: See, for example, Debates, December 12, 1991, p. 6181; December 7, 1994, p. 8760.
[199]: See, for example, Debates, March 13, 1995, p. 10397; March 17, 1995, p. 10671.
[200]: Standing Order 42(1) reads: “Questions put by Members and notices of motions not taken up when called may (upon the request of the government) be allowed to stand and retain their precedence; otherwise they will disappear from the Order Paper. They may, however, be renewed.” See Debates, February 28, 1977, pp. 3473-4; May 27, 1977, p. 6015.