Chapter V — Questions

Introduction

Asking questions in the House, a unique and distinct part of the daily program, is one of the ways in which Members seek information from the Ministry. Such questions may be asked orally without notice or be submitted in writing after due notice.

Oral questions must be on matters of urgency and may be put during the time set aside for that purpose each day. Members who are not satisfied with the answer they obtain to an oral question may pursue the matter at greater length during the Adjournment Proceedings, which occur four times a week.

Written questions, which usually imply greater complexity and detail, may appear on the Order Paper after due notice. Responses are tabled during Routine Proceedings under the rubric “Questions on Order Paper”.

Oral Questions

Commentary — Standing Order 37 (1) and (2)

Each sitting day at no later than 2:15 p.m. (11:15 a.m. on Fridays) the House begins the daily Question Period (see Standing Order 30(5)). Most of the guidelines which apply to Question Period are founded in practice, usage and tradition. Standing Order 37 does, however, require that oral questions put to the Ministry must relate to urgent matters. The urgency of questions is determined by the Speaker, who is free to disallow a non-urgent question in favour of having it put on the Order Paper after due notice. [1] The rule further provides that questions may be asked of the Member designated to represent the Board of Internal Economy. Traditionally, questions to Committee Chairs of a very limited scope have also been deemed acceptable by the Speaker if they relate to committee business. [2]

In addition to these broad rules, there exists a vast body of traditional guidelines, many of which are no longer valid or have fallen into disuse. [3] It is in part because of this difficulty in distinguishing between valid and outdated precedents that the Speaker, in a statement to the House in 1986, addressed this question in stating that the appropriate rules for Question Period should recognize the following principles:

The time is scarce and should, therefore, be used as profitably as possible by as many as possible.

The public in large numbers do watch, and the House, recognizing that Question Period is often an intense time, should be on its best possible behaviour.

While there may be other purposes and ambitions involved in Question Period, its primary purpose must be the seeking of information from the Government and calling the Government to account for its actions.

Members should be given the greatest possible freedom in the putting of questions that is consistent with the other principles. [4]

Then, drawing in part on a previous statement from the Chair, the Speaker elaborated on the four principles:

Mr. Speaker Jerome, in his statement 11 years ago, put his view with regard to the first principle of brevity so well that I would merely quote it:

There can be no doubt that the greatest enemy of the Question Period is the Member who offends this most important principle. In putting the original question on any subject, a Member may require an explanatory remark, but there is no reason for such a preamble to exceed one, carefully drawn sentence.

It is my proposal to ask all Hon. Members to pay close attention to this admonition and to bring them to order if they fail to do so. It bears repeating that the long preamble or long question takes an unfair share of the time, and invariably, in provoking the same kind of response, only compounds the difficulty.

I agree with these comments and would add that such comments obviously also apply to answers by Ministers. I would also endorse Mr. Speaker Jerome’s view that supplementary questions should need no preambles; they should flow from the Minister’s response and be put in precise and direct terms without any prior statement or argument. It is the Chair’s view that it equally follows from the first principle, that time is scarce, that Members should seek to avoid merely repeating questions that have already been asked. I do not mean that other questions on the same subject should not be asked — as apparently I have been interpreted — just that subsequent questions should be other than ones already asked.

For similar reasons it has always been a fundamental rule of questioning Ministers that the subject matter of the question must fall within the collective responsibility of the Government or the individual responsibility of one of its Ministers. This is the only basis upon which Ministers can be expected to answer questions.

Beyond these few restrictions, there are a few other traditional restraints that flow from the principles above. Questions should relate to matters of some urgency and not be purely hypothetical. They should not seek a legal opinion or inquire as to what legal advice a Minister has received. They should not normally anticipate Orders of the Day. However, I hasten to add that there is normal exemption to that with regard to the budget process which I fully intend to honour. Members should be very careful with regard to questions or matters that are sub judice. Ministers should be questioned only in relation to their current portfolios and not in relation to any previously held responsibilities or Party responsibilities. [5]

In another statement, the Speaker made it clear that, while it is not the Chair’s responsibility to determine the length of answers given during Question Period, in the interest of fairness, questions should be as concise as possible in order to encourage answers of similar brevity and thereby allow the Chair to recognize as many Members as possible. In the fall of 1997, following consultations with the political parties, the Speaker implemented a 35-second time-limit for questions and for answers. [6]

These statements of principles and many of their attendant guidelines are still in force today. However, changes to these guidelines were effected, following discussions in 1997, when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommended that questions anticipating the orders of the day should be no longer be ruled out of order. [7] To this day, the fluidity of House practices with regard to Question Period is continuously leading to changes in the manner in which it is conducted.

Historical Summary — Standing Order 37(1) and (2)

As early as 1878, Speaker Anglin reluctantly acknowledged that it was “customary for hon. members to ask the Government for any special information between the various calls from the Chair for the day, before Notices of Motion or the Orders of the Day.” However, he cautioned that he was “not aware that any hon. member has a positive right even to do that; but I think he must confine himself entirely to asking the information from the Government, and he must not proceed to descant on the conduct of the Government.” [8] Some years later, in 1916, T.B. Flint, Clerk of the House and the editor of Bourinot’s 4th edition, described a practice in which

Questions are frequently put by members without notice before the orders of the day are called, but these are merely permitted by courtesy in connection with the business of the house or with very urgent and important matters of public concern. They are always brief, no debate being permitted, and the replies are as concise as possible. The Minister interrogated may reply at once or may direct that the usual notice be given. [9]

A natural consequence of the development of Question Period was the accumulation of several precedent-based limitations on the form and content of oral questions (most of the conditions applied equally to both written and oral questions). The most commonly invoked restrictions made questions which might lead to argument, or which offered opinions or unnecessary facts, unacceptable. [10] Dozens of other conditions, too numerous to list, made their way into House practices. Successive editions of Beauchesne, beginning with the first edition in 1922, included ever-lengthening lists of such conditions, [11] many of which were cited by Members and Chair occupants alike when attempts were made to ask questions judged objectionable.

By the early 1940s, Question Period (“Questions on Orders of the Day” as it was then referred to) had become solidly entrenched as a daily procedure. However, because it was not sanctioned by any Standing Order, the Speaker, in what became almost an annual statement, provided Members with guidelines, interpretations and what amounted to friendly advice on what kinds of questions (and answers) were permissible. [12] In 1944, a procedure committee recommended the adoption of a rule which not only recognized the practice of asking questions on Orders of the Day (and the conditions that came with it), but which also suggested that the number of supplementaries per original question should be limited to three. [13] The proposal, similar to one made in 1947 by Speaker Fauteux [14] was never adopted, despite a 1948 procedure committee recommendation that parts of the two schemes should be implemented. [15] Meanwhile, beginning in 1947 the heading “Inquiries of the Ministry” appeared in the Debates where oral questions were posed.

The continued absence of any rule governing oral questions necessitated further statements from the Speaker on Question Period and resulted, in 1955, in the adoption of a procedure for starred questions (see Standing Order 39) designed to discourage the practice of asking oral questions on Orders of the Day. [16] Despite the change, the Question Period flourished as a proceeding. [17] In the early 1960s, however, the nature of Question Period was briefly changed when the Speaker began to enforce several long-standing unwritten rules regarding question content, many of which were outdated. [18] The resulting furor eventually led to the adoption, in 1964, of the first-ever codification of Question Period rules. [19] Yet only the urgency requirement was incorporated into the Standing Order. In addition to the new rules, however, the House simultaneously approved content guidelines for oral questions and the answers to them. [20] The guidelines stemmed from precedents which were still considered valid but had not been codified. Other practices, including number of supplementaries for example, were left entirely up to the Speaker, who could “direct” that a question not be proceeded with or “that it be placed on the Order Paper” after due notice.

With new guidelines and a Standing Order in place, Question Period began a swift evolution to its present format. In 1965, the Standing Order was amended to eliminate the Speaker’s discretion in deciding if a non-urgent question should be proceeded with. [21] New precedents, including the ineligibility of Parliamentary Secretaries to ask questions during Question Period, were set along the way. [22] In 1975, when the House adopted changes to the timing of Question Period, Speaker Jerome made a statement to the House in which he established that asking oral questions was a right, not a privilege of Members, and in which he identified several principles for the conduct of Question Period. He also explained why points of order and questions of privilege would be prohibited during Question Period, reiterated those question and answer content requirements that would continue to apply and added to them those which had evolved since 1964. [23] Still, the original Standing Order remained virtually unchanged, and made no reference to most of the Question Period guidelines, precedents and practice.

After 1975, Question Period became more and more an open forum where questions of every description could be asked, often without regard to some of the guidelines that had been issued. This was coupled with an apparent reluctance on the part of successive Speakers to use their discretionary powers to direct that non-urgent questions be placed on the Order Paper. Much of this evolution may have resulted from Speaker Jerome’s 1975 view that it was best “to reduce to an absolute minimum the negative disqualifications that may limit or restrict a Member’s right” to ask questions. [24] In 1985, the Standing Order was amended to allow Members to ask questions of a designated representative of the Board of Internal Economy. [25] A statement similar to that of 1975 was made in 1986 by Speaker Bosley following a period of routinely acrimonious and disorderly Question Periods during which several Members were named and suspended for a sitting. [26] In 1991, following a series of particularly difficult Question Periods and incidents arising from insulting remarks and behaviour, the Speaker created a small advisory group to consider parliamentary language and behaviour. It reported to the Speaker in June of 1992 and the report was transmitted to the House Leaders of the different parties. [27]

In 1993, the Standing Committee on House Management proposed certain measures to reform Question Period. It recommended guidelines for acceptable questions, measures to enable more questions to be asked and more answers to be given, guidelines on supplementary questions, restrictions on the use of lists in Question Period and a roster system for Ministers. The House, however, never debated nor adopted the report. [28]

In 1997, many questions and even points of order were being raised on the issue of questions anticipating the Orders of the Day during Oral Question Period. [29] After consideration of the events, the Procedure and House Affairs Committee recommended that questions should no longer be ruled out of order on the sole basis that they anticipated the Orders of the Day. [30] Shortly after, although the House had not yet adopted the report, Speaker Parent stated that he would follow the Committee’s advice. [31]

Commentary — Standing Order 37(3)

Sometimes a Member asking an oral question will not be satisfied with the answer given. If this happens, or if the Speaker has decided, because it is not urgent, that a question asked orally should be placed on the Order Paper, the Member concerned can seek more information from the government by giving the Speaker written notice of the subject-matter of the question no later than one hour after the end of Question Period that day. From among such notices (typically many are given to the Speaker), the Speaker may choose one or more for discussion during the Adjournment Proceedings (see Standing Order 38). If the question is not raised within forty-five days after notice having been given, it shall be deemed withdrawn.

Historical Summary — Standing Order 37(3)

This Standing Order was introduced in 1964 when the first ground rules for the daily Question Period were adopted. The provision was a complement to another, more detailed provision (adopted at the same time), for Adjournment Proceedings under a different Standing Order (now Standing Order 38). [1] The time by which Members dissatisfied with answers or whose questions were ruled more appropriate for the Order Paper must give notice was initially set at 5:00 p.m. In 1968, this was changed to 4:00 p.m. [2] and in 1987, to accommodate the change in the Friday hours of sitting, the rule was reworded to its present form, substituting the 4:00 p.m. deadline for the less rigid requirement that notice should be given no later than one hour after the end of Question Period. [3] In 1991, a new provision concerning questions during Adjournment Proceedings was adopted. It determined that questions not raised forty-five days after notice has been given would be deemed withdrawn. [4]

One Speaker ruled that questions directed to Committee Chairs ought not be the subject of Adjournment Proceedings. [5] However, in 2001, a Member rose on a question of privilege to object that, while oral questions could be put to a representative of the Board of Internal Economy, the Member, if dissatisfied with the reply, could not then discuss the matter further during the Adjournment Proceedings since only Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries could reply during such proceedings. [6] The House later adopted a motion, by unanimous consent, to provide that a spokesperson for the Board, who was not a Minister nor Parliamentary Secretary, could reply during the adjournment proceedings. [7]

Commentary — Standing Order 38(1), (2), (5) and (6)

Standing Order 24(2) provides for an automatic 6:30 p.m. adjournment of the House on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays (2:30 p.m. on Fridays), while Standing Order 67(2) specifies that motions to adjourn the House are not debatable. As an exception to these rules, Standing Order 38 allows the Speaker to deem, at adjournment time on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, that a motion to adjourn the House has been moved and seconded, the motion being followed by an adjournment debate of at most 30 minutes’ duration. This 30-minute debate, officially called “Adjournment Proceedings”, is also known informally as the “late show”.

The debate is not restricted to only one matter for 30 minutes. Several topics stemming from questions first raised in the daily Question Period or from questions on the Order Paper that have failed to receive an answer within a requested forty-five day period [1] may be debated. Each such topic, notice of which has been duly given to the Speaker (see Standing Order 37(3)) is allotted up to 10 of the 30 minutes. The Member raising the matter and the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary responding each are allowed four minutes initially to speak. [2] Following the speech from the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary, the Member who raised the question and the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary have one minute to respond. When the debate ends on all the topics slated for a particular day, or after 30 minutes total debating time, whichever comes first, the motion to adjourn is deemed carried and the Speaker adjourns the House until the next sitting day.

If a Member scheduled to raise a question during Adjournment Proceedings fails to appear for the Adjournment Debate, the adjournment notice shall be deemed withdrawn and the Member loses the opportunity to raise his or her question.

Occasionally, the Adjournment Proceedings are suspended because of other House orders which specify the completion or continuation of other business on a given sitting day. Adjournment Proceedings are suspended when take-note debates are held, [3] when emergency debates take place, [4] when closure has been moved on an item, during proceedings for the election of the Speaker, [5] and on the day designated for the presentation of a budget. [6] When the House adopts a motion to adjourn early, Adjournment Proceedings do not take place.

If the ordinary hour of daily adjournment is suspended on the last allotted day in the Supply periods ending December 10, March 26 and June 23 in order to complete the business of supply on those days, the Adjournment Proceedings may be delayed. [7] The late show is delayed when a sitting is extended due to a ministerial statement, [8] for concurrence in a committee report, when Private Members’ Business has been extended on the second sitting day set aside for the consideration of the report and third reading stages of a bill, [9] and when a recorded division is deferred to the conclusion of oral questions. [10] The Adjournment Proceedings can also be delayed when a motion to extend the sitting hours in June has been adopted pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), and when a motion to extend consideration on an item has been adopted pursuant to Standing Order 26. The Adjournment Proceedings could be delayed or interrupted because of a Royal Assent ceremony. [11] The late show may also be delayed when time is spent (before or after the 30 minutes) considering the future business of the House. This reference to the future business of the House is a legacy from the time when the next day’s business was announced at the end of the sitting. [12]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), specific provision is made for the Adjournment Proceedings to take place prior to the House resolving into Committee of the Whole to consider certain Estimates designated by the Leader of the Opposition. [13]

Commentary — Standing Order 38(3) and (4)

Very often, more notices to debate a matter during the Adjournment Proceedings are given to the Speaker than those for which there is time available. This eventuality is addressed by Standing Order 38(3) which gives the Speaker the discretion to decide the order in which such notices will be taken up for debate. The rule also instructs the Chair to consider, in so deciding, “the order in which notices were given,… the urgency of the matters raised, and… the apportioning of the opportunities to debate such matters among the Members of the various parties in the House”. [14] The Standing Order further provides that the Speaker may discuss with and consider the advice of party representatives in arriving at a sequence for the consideration of notices received.

On the days on which the Adjournment Proceedings are possible — Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays — the Speaker is bound to advise the House by 5:00 p.m. of which matter or matters, if any, are to be debated that day.

Historical Summary — Standing Order 38

In a review of the Standing Orders in 1964, the House adopted a procedure committee proposal for the first-ever Standing Order to regulate Question Period (see the Historical Summary to Standing Order 37(1) and (2)). At the same time, the House agreed to the committee’s suggestion that a rule on the Adjournment Proceedings — the precursor to the present-day Standing Order 38 — be adopted to complement the Question Period Standing Order. [15]

The committee’s rationale in proposing the Adjournment Proceedings Standing Order was that

…merely to impose restrictions on the Orders of the Day Question Period, by itself, …would not retain the rights that are inherent in the asking of questions. We therefore propose …that on three nights in the week, Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, there be available a possible half hour period during which there might be short submissions on three different subjects on each of these three nights.

Our proposal is that if during the Question Period a Member feels dissatisfied with the answer he gets from the government, …he may give notice that he wishes to raise that matter at the time of adjournment. [16]

Soon after the rule’s introduction, the Speaker ruled that points of order and questions of privilege could not be raised during the half-hour period set aside for Adjournment Proceedings (this ruling has frequently been reiterated since), [17] and that late show items could not stem from oral questions ruled out of order for reasons other than that they were not urgent. [18]

Occasionally, the House dispensed with the Adjournment Proceedings entirely; [19] at other times, the items slated for discussion were deferred to another day by unanimous consent. [20] The increasing number of deferred late shows led, in 1968, to the adoption of a new section of the Standing Orders. This section stipulated that Adjournment Proceedings were to be suspended when Standing or Special Orders provided for the business of the House to be continued beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment. This provision was later deleted in June 1994. [21]

By the 1970s, the late show had become an extremely popular vehicle for Members wishing to discuss at greater length matters initially raised during the Question Period. With the number of notices given for debate far exceeding the time available, one Member suggested in 1973 that the time allotted to each Member participating in the Adjournment Proceedings be reduced by half. [22] In 1976, several recommendations were made (but not adopted): first, to extend the time allotted to late show questions to allow for debate on up to five of them; and second, to permit the lapsing of uncalled items after 20 sitting days. [23] Then, in 1979, a Member suggested the Adjournment Proceedings be held at 6:00 p.m. (this had also been mentioned in 1976) even though the applicable adjournment hour was 10:00 p.m. [24]

Eventually, in 1982, the decision to eliminate evening sittings resulted in 6:00 p.m. late shows, but no further changes were made to reflect other previous recommendations. [25] Then, in 1985, rules were changed to allow for the delay of the late show in cases where sittings are extended by Ministerial Statements. [26] The late-show was pushed back to 7:00 p.m. on Mondays in 1989, [27] then brought back to 6:00 p.m. in 1991. [28] Speaking time for the Member raising the question was then reduced from seven minutes to four minutes and speaking time for the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary was also reduced from four minutes to two minutes. [29] It was at this same time that the House adopted a new Standing Order (see 39(5)(b)) that introduced measures for the transfer of Order Paper questions. [30] This new section addresses unanswered questions on the Order Paper. As prescribed by Standing Order 39, a Member may place a question on the Order Paper and request an answer within forty-five sitting days. [31] If, at the end of the specified time period, the question remains unanswered, the Member may, pursuant to Standing Order 39(5)(b), give notice that he or she intends to raise the subject-matter of the question during Adjournment Proceedings.

Following changes adopted in February 1994, the time for the Adjournment Proceedings was set at 6:30 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays [32] and, in June 1994, Adjournment Proceedings were added, at the same time, on Wednesdays. [33]

In June 2001, the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons was authorized to review the Standing Orders. Among other recommendations, it suggested changes to Standing Order 17 and, by doing so, released Members from their obligation to speak from their assigned seat during the Adjournment Proceedings. [34] The Committee also recommended changes to Standing Order 38(5). This modification increased the speaking time during the Adjournment Proceedings for the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary to an initial four minutes, instead of the previous two, and permitted a period of one minute each for the Member and the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary to respond. [35] The Committee also recommended a change to Standing Order 81(4)(a) which affected the Adjournment Proceedings. On those occasions when a day was appointed to consider the Main Estimates of certain departments or agencies in Committee of the Whole, as designated by the Leader of the Opposition, such consideration would not take place until after the Adjournment Proceedings on that day. [36] These recommendations were adopted by the House in October of 2001. [37]

Despite the requirement for the Speaker to inform the House by 5:00 p.m. of the order in which questions are to be raised that day during the Adjournment Proceedings, Members raising questions would sometimes fail to appear for the Adjournment Debate. [38] In a particular instance, a question of privilege was raised on the issue. [39] In order to discourage this practice, the House adopted, in September 2003, new Standing Order 38(2)(b). This new rule stipulates that a Member who fails to appear to raise his or her question during the time provided for the Adjournment Debate shall not have the matter of his or her question taken up and the notice shall be deemed withdrawn. [40]

Written Questions

Commentary — Standing Order 39(1) and (2)

According to Standing Order 39(1), questions on the Order Paper may be addressed to Ministers or to private Members. Those addressed to Ministers must seek information on public matters of concern to the Ministry; those addressed to private Members must deal either with bills, motions or public matters connected with the business of the House, with which such Members are “concerned”. In practice, however, questions placed on the Order Paper have been addressed to Ministers, and the Standing Order is mostly silent on how answers to questions addressed to private Members are to be provided. [1]

However, before any question reaches the Order Paper (after notice), it is first examined to ensure that it meets certain requirements, a task assumed by the Clerk [2] who, relying on the Standing Order and on the practices of the House, and acting on the Speaker’s behalf, scrutinizes all questions for correctness of form and content. He or she may even divide multiple questions so that separate notices are given. The principles guiding the Clerk in this regard are contained in section (1), which prohibits the use of argumentative material or unnecessary facts, or the offering of opinions on a question. However, in addition to these criteria, several traditional guidelines and conditions date back to Confederation. [3] Unfortunately, aside from a 1965 Speaker’s statement indicating that some of these no longer apply, [4] there is no definitive breakdown of which ones are still valid.

A written question is judged acceptable if it satisfies the general guidelines for oral questions and the restrictions regarding written questions provided in the rules. The purpose of a written question is to obtain information, not readily or easily provideable in response to an oral question. A question must be coherent and concise and the subject matter must pertain to “public affairs”. No argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same. [5]

A Member wishing to submit a written question must give forty-eight hours’ notice before it is placed on the Order Paper. A number is assigned to the question upon submission. [6]

Historical Summary — Standing Order 39(1) and (2)

In 1867, a single rule virtually identical to today’s Standing Order 39(1) governed the asking of questions via the Order Paper. [7] Then, as now, the rule provided that questions could be asked of private Members as well as of Ministers, although judging from an 1884 explanation of the rule by J.G. Bourinot, Clerk of the House, it appears that, from the beginning, the practice saw questions directed to Ministers. [8] That practice has continued to this day, and has been periodically reinforced with additions to the Standing Order referring to how answers are to be provided to Order Paper questions; in each case, questions to Ministers appear to be assumed (see Standing Order 39(3), (4), (5), (6) and (7)). [9]

Similarly, the second part of the 1867 rule having to do with the form and content of questions and the manner of answering them has continued in force. However, the prohibitions on the use of argument, opinion and unnecessary facts were supplemented very early after Confederation by a number of precedent-based conditions. With time, and the help of several Speaker’s decisions, the lists of such conditions as published in successive editions of Bourinot and Beauchesne grew very long. [10] Concurrently, some of the conditions became outdated or irrelevant; yet the lists were for the most part not brought up to date. Thus, a very large measure of responsibility for ensuring the regularity of written questions fell to the Clerk, whose duty it was to apprise the Speaker, based on these precedents, of any irregularity in the questions submitted by Members.

Once so apprised, it was then the practice for the Speaker, if he agreed with the Clerk, to order the latter to “communicate with the member, so that he may have an opportunity of amending his notice”. [11] Occasionally, however, an irregular question went unnoticed, in which case the Member asking it was given a chance to amend it verbally before it was put. [12] Before long, the Clerk’s authority in examining questions came to rest on what amounted to a permanent order from the Speaker. Most Members, naturally anxious to obtain information, readily complied with the Clerk’s requests to change the content or form of their questions, and the Speaker became involved only occasionally. In 1986, the House formalized the Clerk’s role with regard to questions by codifying it in the Standing Orders. [13] Unfortunately, it did not at the same time cull the existing precedent lists to set out for the Clerk which of the many conditions should be enforced and which should be ignored.

In November 2004, following questions raised on the relevance and accuracy of responses to certain Members’ questions, [14] the Auditor General, at the request of the government, studied this issue and tabled a report in which she recommended measures to improve the system for responding to Order Paper questions. [15]

Commentary — Standing Order 39(3), (4), (5), (6) and (7)

When a Member submits a written question for placement on the Notice Paper, he or she indicates whether a written or an oral response is desired. If an oral answer is sought, the question is superscribed; a question without such a superscript indicates the Member wants a written response. In addition, the Member may request (not demand) a response to the question within 45 days of its filing. All questions are assigned a number when they are submitted.

On the day for which notice is given (a minimum of two days following the notice; see Standing Order 54), the question is placed on the Order Paper. [1] Each Member is allowed a maximum of four such questions standing in his or her name on the Order Paper at any one time. All four can request a response within 45 days; at most, three can be superscribed for an oral answer.

Technically, the Minister to whom a written question is addressed should be the one to answer it in the House, whether orally or in writing. In practice, however, the task is usually divided between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, who gives written answers, [2] and individual Parliamentary Secretaries, who give oral answers. [3] In either case, both the question and the answer are printed in the Debates. The House does not run through all written questions individually every day to see whether or not a Member wishes to ask a question on that day. Instead, when the House reaches the heading “Questions on Order Paper” under Routine Proceedings, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader rises to announce the numbers of the questions being answered. Any oral answers are given at this time by the appropriate Parliamentary Secretary. After all available answers have been submitted on a particular day, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader requests that the remaining questions stand on the Order Paper [4] (see Commentary for Standing Order 42).

In some cases, long and complex questions which require information from a number of government departments, or which would require lengthy replies, are transformed to become either notices of motions or orders for return.

Standing Order 39(6), although rarely invoked, provides for the transformation of a question into a notice of motion under certain circumstances. This transformation occurs if the Speaker believes that a question would require a lengthy reply and if he or she is asked by the government (in practice the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader) to have the question stand as a notice of motion. [5] Once the Speaker directs that the transformation take place, the Clerk must, if necessary, amend the question so that it meets the form requirements for notices of motions. The new notice of motion is then placed in the appropriate section of the Order Paper under the heading Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers and, if a debate is desired, under Notices of Motions (Papers) within Private Members’ Business.

In 1989, the Speaker refused a government request to apply Standing Order 39(6) and have a number of questions transferred to Notices of Motions. In his ruling, the Speaker stated that:

The Chair is extremely concerned that allowing the Government’s request to transform a question into a Notice of Motion would appear as a step backwards in the evolution of the procedure governing written questions and would go against the expectation of the McGrath reform to have a more efficient method of dealing with questions. [6]

A more common procedure is the transformation of a question into an order for return, followed by the tabling of the appropriate return. Although the rule specifies that it is a Minister who must be of the opinion that a reply to a question should be in the form of a return, and who must state that he or she has no objection to laying such return upon the Table, in practice, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader assumes this responsibility. Typically, the stated intention to have a question transformed (which automatically becomes an order of the House unless the House decides otherwise) is followed immediately by the tabling of the return in question. [7] This, however, need not be the case, nor is it necessary for the return eventually tabled to answer every part of the original question at that time. [8]

Both transformation procedures are conducted under the Routine Proceedings heading “Questions on Order Paper”. The returns tabled in response to questions transformed into orders for return are not printed in the Debates.

If the government fails to answer an Order Paper question for which an answer was requested within a 45-day period, the written question is deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee. [9] The Chair of the committee is then required to convene a meeting of the committee within five sitting days of the referral to investigate the failure of the Ministry to respond to the written question and may report the matter to the House. Although the question remains on the Order Paper, it is designated as referred to committee. This designation allows the Member to submit an additional question; however, he or she would still be restricted to a maximum of four “non-designated” questions at any one time. If the Member does not wish to have his or her question transferred to committee, Standing Order 39(5)(b) allows the Member to rise under “Questions on the Order Paper” and give notice that he or she intends to have the subject-matter of the question transferred to the Adjournment Proceedings. [10]

Historical Summary — Standing Order 39(3), (4), (5), (6) and (7)

Between 1867 and 1896, all Order Paper questions called for consideration were asked and answered orally. When a question was called, the Member in whose name it stood rose to read it and an answer was then given by the Minister to whom it was addressed. [11] Questions called and the answers to them were printed in full in the Debates. Supplementary questions were not allowed. [12] Any questions called and not answered were automatically dropped from the Order Paper, and had to be renewed. [13]

In the fall of 1896, the Speaker instituted a numbering system for questions whereby “hon. members may either refer to a question by its number when asking for an answer, or, if they choose, they may read the question, as usual.” [14] The change was largely successful in its intended purpose of expediting the business of the House, but it also led to abuses by some Members, who began to submit inordinately long and detailed questions which they would no longer be required to read. This practice nettled the government, as evidenced in 1900, when a Member submitted a question several pages long. When it was called, several Members, including Prime Minister Laurier, insisted it had to be read if Members wished it to be, and the Speaker agreed. Only after the Member had read through several parts of the question was he then allowed to ask it by simply calling its number. [15] Despite the example made in this case, long questions requiring long answers continued to make their way onto the Order Paper. Eventually, in 1906, a new Standing Order, the ancestor to today’s Standing Order 39(6), was adopted, thus making it possible to transfer without debate questions of this kind to another part of the Order Paper as notices of motions. [16] After the rule’s adoption, long questions of the type objected to fell into disuse because the order of business was such that once transformed, such questions were unlikely to be reached for debate. Also, beginning in 1906, questions that had been called could be stood instead of being automatically dropped if not answered. [17]

Still, gaps remained in the procedures. Answers to questions were often lengthy and complex, and reading them took up valuable House time. In other instances, answers were refused on the grounds that the questions sought information which ought to have been sought by an Order of the House or an Address. [18] It was not surprising, therefore, that in 1910, two new sections were added to the Standing Order on questions. The first made it possible for Ministers to answer questions by merely tabling the answers rather than by reading them, much in the same way as Members’ questions were asked by calling their numbers. Members meanwhile could continue to demand (and receive) oral answers by marking their questions with an asterisk. The second addition, identical to the present Standing Order 39(7), made it possible to deal with questions requiring complex or lengthy answers by transforming them into orders for return, the returns being tabled, in most cases, immediately after the order was deemed made. [19] After 1910 therefore, the manner of answering questions was as follows:

…the Speaker calls them by number, mentioning the name of the member who indicates his desire for an answer by rising, the question not being read. The minister then answers the question orally or hands the written answer to the Clerk at the table. The Clerk sends the answer to the official debates office where it is inserted in the Hansard of the day… If the minister is not ready with his reply [assuming the Member will not take it up] the question is allowed to stand until again duly reached on the order paper. [20]

Any transformations into notices of motions or orders for return were made after the question was asked.

These rules and practices remained unchanged until 1955 when, in a marked (although temporary) departure from previous practice, all superscribed (at that time, “starred”) questions were grouped to be answered on Wednesdays only. Each Member was allowed only three such questions on the Order Paper at any one time. In addition, the transformation of questions into notices of motions or orders for return could now only be effected on Wednesdays. Questions seeking written answers continued to be dealt with as before. [21] The procedure was apparently intended to control the growing practice of asking oral questions on Orders of the Day (see Historical Summary to Standing Order 37(1) and (2)). However, the new procedures did not produce the desired results and, in late 1961, the rules reverted to their pre-1955 wording, [22] although in 1962 the limit of three “starred” questions per Member was reinstituted. [23]

In the early 1960s, therefore, the process for answering questions was largely the same as after the 1910 reforms. When the House reached Questions on Order Paper, the Speaker called each question in turn, with Ministers (or Parliamentary Secretaries) “interrupting occasionally to say, ‘Answered’, when they wished to send an answer to the Table”. [24]

In mid-1963, however, the process was changed significantly, [25] so that:

…when an answer to a question has been approved by the appropriate minister, the answer is deposited with the Parliamentary Returns Office of the House. In the meantime the various departments tell the parliamentary secretary to the government house leader what questions they intend to answer that day, and a composite list of the numbers of all such questions is prepared. During the hour before the beginning of a sitting this list is checked against the answers actually deposited, for sometimes departments fail to fulfil their intentions. When the speaker calls Questions on the Order Paper the parliamentary secretary now merely reads out his verified list of question numbers. [26]

That done, he or she then requested that all other questions be allowed to stand.

The change, reflected in today’s practice, greatly accelerated House procedures in dealing with written questions, but problems remained. Although Members were allowed only three starred questions, no limit applied to written questions seeking written responses. As a result, there were many sessions where the number of questions on the Order Paper exceeded 2,000. [27] In several sessions in the 1970s, one Member alone had several hundred questions standing in his name. [28] At the same time, however, answers to some questions were long in coming. Occasionally, questions were made orders for return but the returns were tabled much later. [29] Eventually, in 1986 these concerns were addressed when the House agreed to Standing Order amendments imposing a limit of four questions per Member on the Order Paper at any one time, while also codifying the right of Members to request a response to a question within 45 calendar days of its filing. [30]

Between 1867 and 1975, written questions had precedence only on certain days of the week (usually Mondays and Wednesdays and, in the early years, Tuesdays as well) as the House typically did not reach the heading Questions on Order Paper on the other days. After 1975, however, a rule change ensured the House would reach the rubric daily. In 1987, the heading was made a part of Routine Proceedings. [31]

In 1991, a new Standing Order, 39(5)(b), addressing the issue of unanswered questions on the Order Paper, was adopted. [32] If a question for which a response within 45 days had been sought was not answered within the specified time period, the Member could ask that the subject matter of the question be transferred to the Adjournment Proceedings. This provision has been applied only twice since it was implemented. [33] Even if this rule provided the Member with another opportunity to have his or her question answered, there was still considerable frustration on the part of Members because many questions were not answered. Since the Standing Orders permitted a Member to have a maximum of four questions on the Order Paper at one time, the Member was prevented from submitting other questions, despite the expiry of the 45-day period. [34] This resulted in a further amendment to this rule in 2001. [35] This change to the Standing Order provided for the automatic referral of the failure of a Ministry to respond to the written question to a standing committee for study. [36] The question is transferred to the committee, and so designated on the Order Paper. In accordance with the rule, the Chair of the committee must, within five sitting days of the referral, convene a meeting of the committee to consider the Ministry’s failure to answer. The Member is then entitled to submit an additional written question up to the maximum of four questions allowed at any one time.

Content Disclaimer