Chapter V — Questions

Notes on Standing Order 37(1) and (2):

[1]

See for example, Debates, August 6, 1964, p. 6461; February 11, 1993, pp. 15784-5.

[2]

Debates, May 20, 1970, pp. 7126-7; June 12, 1991, pp. 1535-6; December 9, 2002, p. 2427; January 29, 2003, p. 2845.

[3]

See for example, guideline 7(2)(b) listed in the Second Report of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization in Journals, April 15, 1964, p. 213.

[4]

Debates, February 24, 1986, pp. 10878-9.

[5]

Debates, February 24, 1986, p. 10879.

[6]

Debates, February 3, 1997, p. 7580; September 24, 1997, p. 23. The measure to shorten the length of time for both questions and answers and therefore recognize a greater number of Members during Question Period was introduced in 1997, when upon consultation with the political parties, the Speaker implemented the 35-second time-limit for questions and for answers. (Debates, September 25, 1997, p. 95; February 24, 1998, pp. 4370-1).

[7]

Debates, March 21, 1997, p. 9331; Journals, March 21, 1997, p. 1334.

[8]

Debates, March 20, 1878, p. 1269.

[9]

Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 315.

[10]

See for example, Debates, February 23, 1882, p. 73. This flowed naturally from a rule (1867 Rule 29) which had traditionally applied to written questions.

[11]

Beauchesne, 1^st ed., pp. 97-9; 2^nd ed., pp. 112-5; 3^rd ed., pp. 119-25; 4^th ed., pp. 147-56; 5^th ed., pp. 129-34; 6^th ed., pp. 119-23. Successive editions of Bourinot also listed precedents.

[12]

See for example, Journals, July 15, 1940, pp. 216-8; March 15, 1943, pp. 160-1; Debates, May 8, 1941, p. 2651; March 20, 1942, pp. 1486-7; February 16, 1944, pp. 547-9.

[13]

Journals, March 3, 1944, p. 151. The proposed rule read as follows:  “A question of urgent character may be addressed orally to a Minister on the orders of the day being called, provided a copy thereof has been delivered to the Minister and to the Clerk of the House at least one hour before the meeting of the House. Such a question shall not be prefaced by the reading of telegrams, newspaper extracts, letters or preambles of any kind. The answer shall be oral and may be immediately followed by supplementary questions limited to three in number, without debate or comment, for the elucidation of the information given by the Minister.”

[14]

Journals, December 5, 1947, pp. 17-20.

[15]

Journals, June 25, 1948, p. 680.

[16]

Dawson, p. 151.

[17]

The 1956 statement by Speaker Beaudoin makes this evident (Journals, March 16, 1956, pp. 299-305). It is important to note that Question Period was not a daily proceeding (see Standing Order 30(6)).

[18]

Journals, October 31, 1963, pp. 509-13.

[19]

Journals, April 20, 1964, p. 224.

[20]

Journals, April 20, 1964, p. 225.

[21]

Journals, June 11, 1965, p. 226.

[22]

Debates, March 6, 1973, pp. 1932-3. Speaker Jerome later modified this decision (Debates, November 5, 1974, pp. 1059-64). This decision was reiterated by succeeding Speakers on other occasions (see for example, Debates, October 1, 1991, p. 3001).

[23]

Journals, April 14, 1975, pp. 439-41. See also Journals, March 14, 1975, p. 373; March 24, 1975, p. 399. For recent examples of the Speaker reminding Members that points of order are not permitted during Question Period, see Debates, April 4, 1989, p. 32; February 9, 1993, p. 15637; April 23, 2002, p. 10720.

[24]

Journals, April 14, 1975, p. 439.

[25]

Journals, June 27, 1985, pp. 914, 919. Examples of such a question are found in Debates, February 5, 1986, p. 10473; November 19, 1992, p. 13654; February 2, 1994, pp. 791-2. See also Beauchesne, 6^th ed., p. 58.

[26]

In an attempt to maintain order in the House, Speaker Bosley resorted to seeking the cooperation of Members through a statement he delivered in 1986 (Debates, February 24, 1986, pp. 10878-9). In spite of the Speaker’s intervention, some Members still questioned which guidelines were in force (see Debates, October 3, 1986, pp. 36-7). In the mid-1990s, once again, Question Period became disorderly and resulted in the naming of a few Members (see for example, Debates, September 30, 1994, pp. 6386-7; November 2, 1995, pp. 16144-5).

[27]

A Special Advisory Group was asked to study sexist and racist language in the House. It reported to the Speaker in June 1992; the report was transmitted to House Leaders, but no official action was taken on its recommendations. See Debates, September 18, 1991, p. 2317; October 9, 1991, pp. 3515-6; October 10, 1991, pp. 3560-4. See also debate on a motion concerning decorum in the House which took place on October 23 and 25, and November 21, 1991.

[28]

See pages 15-8 of the Eighty-First Report of the Standing Committee on House Management entitled “Report on Parliamentary Reform”, presented on April 1, 1993 (Journals, p. 2774).

[29]

Debates, March 4, 1997, pp. 8594-5; March 6, 1997, p. 8729; March 10, 1997, pp. 8836, 8840.

[30]

Debates, March 21, 1997, p. 9331; Journals, March 21, 1997, p. 1334.

[31]

Debates, April 7, 1997, p. 9377.

Notes on Standing Order 37(3):

[1]

Journals, April 20, 1964, pp. 224-5.

[2]

Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 568-9.

[3]

Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1022.

[4]

Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2909, 2931-2.

[5]

Debates, May 7, 1986, p. 13048.

[6]

Debates, September 28, 2001, pp. 5721-3.

[7]

Journals, October 2, 2001, p. 677; Debates, October 2, 2001, p. 5883; October 30, 2001, pp. 6757-8.

Notes on Standing Order 38:

[1]

See Standing Order 39(5)(b).

[2]

The Chair has applied these time limits rigourously. See Debates, February 9, 1999, p. 11687; February 1, 2005, p. 2966; March 7, 2005, p. 4072.

[3]

See Standing Order 53.1(2).

[4]

See Standing Order 52(12).

[5]

See Standing Order 2(3).

[6]

See Standing Order 83(2).

[7]

See Standing Order 81(17) and (18).

[8]

See Standing Order 33(2).

[9]

See Standing Order 98(3) and (5).

[10]

See Standing Order 45(7.1).

[11]

See for example, Debates, November 6, 1990, p. 15236.

[12]

Debates, September 23, 1968, pp. 382-3.

[13]

See Standing Order 81(4)(a). The practical consequences of this provision is that, rather than the adjournment motion being deemed adopted, it is proposed and then deemed “withdrawn”. See, for example, Journals, November 16, 2004, p. 225; November 23, 2004, p. 253.

[14]

See Standing Order 38(3).

[15]

Journals, April 20, 1964, pp. 224-5.

[16]

Debates, April 20, 1964, p. 2342. See also the Historical Summary to Standing Order 37(3).

[17]

Debates, April 30, 1964, pp. 2799-802. See also Debates, March 20, 1984, pp. 2272-3; January 27, 1987, p. 2764; December 5, 1991, p. 5892; February 11, 1999, p. 11819. It has, however, happened that points of order have been allowed (Debates, November 3, 1986, p. 1033). It has been the case that points of order regarding unparliamentary language have been dealt with at the time they occurred (Debates, June 12, 1986, p. 14356; June 13, 1986, p. 14372).

[18]

Debates, April 27, 1964, pp. 2581-2.

[19]

See for example, Debates, June 3, 1969, p. 9395.

[20]

See for example, Debates, March 1, 1966, p. 2025.

[21]

Journals, December 6, 1968, p. 437; December 20, 1968, p. 569. The deletion of that section of the Standing Order was recommended in the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented on June 8, 1994 (Journals, p. 545) and adopted on June 10, 1994 (Journals, p. 563). For the original text of the Standing Order, see the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, consolidated version as of February 14, 1994, Standing Order 38 (7).

[22]

Debates, March 9, 1973, pp. 2075-6.

[23]

See Appendix “J” of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, September 30, 1976, Issue No. 20, pp. 20:57-8; and Journals, November 1, 1976, pp. 90-1.

[24]

Debates, November 8, 1979, p. 1081.

[25]

See the Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1982, Standing Order 45(1).

[26]

See the Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1985, Standing Order 46(7).

[27]

Journals, December 20, 1989, pp. 1060-1.

[28]

Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2909.

[29]

Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2909.

[30]

Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2909-10.

[31]

See Standing Order 39(5)(a) and Commentary for Standing Order 39(3), (4), (5), (6) and (7).

[32]

Journals, February 7, 1994, pp. 118-20.

[33]

See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented on June 8, 1994 (Journals, p. 545) and adopted on June 10, 1994 (Journals, p. 563).

[34]

See page 7 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, presented on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465) and adopted on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3).

[35]

See page 7 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, presented on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465) and adopted on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3).

[36]

See page 14 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, presented on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465) and adopted on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3).

[37]

See Journals, October 4, 2001, pp. 691-3.

[38]

Debates, December 6, 1999, pp. 2192, 2241-3.

[39]

Debates, April 25, 2002, pp. 10800, 10843-4.

[40]

See page 18 of the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, tabled on June 12, 2003 (Journals, p. 915) and adopted on September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995). For examples of Members failing to appear to raise their question during the Adjournment Proceedings when previously scheduled, see Debates, November 3, 2004, pp. 1186-7; March 7, 2005, p. 4072.

Notes on Standing Order 39(1) and (2):

[1]

There are no known precedents of Order Paper questions being addressed to private Members.

[2]

Normally a representative of the Clerk in the Journals Branch assumes the task.

[3]

Beauchesne, 6^th ed., pp. 124-6.

[4]

Journals, March 30, 1965, pp. 1191-4.

[5]

See House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 441.

[6]

See Standing Order 54.

[7]

Aside from a 1906 amendment, which extended the conditions respecting the content of questions to the answers given as well, the substance of the rule has not since been altered (Debates, July 10, 1906, cols. 7602-3).

[8]

Bourinot, 1^st ed., p. 321.

[9]

Bourinot wrote that “No Member may put a question to another Member unless it refers to some bill or motion before the House,” but his footnote reference did not support this claim (Bourinot, 2^nd ed., p. 385). Yet the right of Members to submit Order Paper questions directed to private Members appears to have remained, and in at least one case, such a question would have been allowed if notice had been given in the usual way (Debates, March 26, 1914, pp. 2082-3. See also Debates, March 13, 1912, col. 4982).

[10]

Bourinot, 1^st ed., pp. 321-5; 2^nd ed., pp. 381-5; 3^rd ed., pp. 430-5; 4^th ed., pp. 310-5; Beauchesne, 1^st ed., pp. 97-9; 2^nd ed., pp. 112-5; 3^rd ed., pp. 119-25; 4^th ed., pp. 147-56; 5^th ed., pp. 129-34, 6^th ed., pp. 124-6.

[11]

Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 313.

[12]

See for example, Debates, February 27, 1878, p. 569; March 5, 1877, p. 437.

[13]

The proposal was tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, pp. 1653-4) and adopted on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710). The codification stemmed from the recommendations contained on page 46 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, tabled on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).

[14]

See for example, Q-37 on the Order Paper (Second Session, Thirty-Seventh Parliament), Debates, February 4, 2004, pp. 104-8; February 6, 2004, p. 263; Journals, February 14, 2003, p. 421; February 6, 2004, p. 26; and Q-60 on the Order Paper (First Session, Thirty-Eighth Parliament), Debates, March 21, 2005, pp. 4375-6.

[15]

See Chapter 7 of the Auditor General Report entitled “Matters of Special Importance”, tabled on November 23, 2004 (Journals, p. 245).

Notes on Standing Order 39(3), (4), (5), (6) and (7):

[1]

The complete list of questions on the Order Paper is available for consultation at the Table in the Chamber and on the Internet. Those questions not appearing on the list have been answered, withdrawn or made orders for return.

[2]

See for example, Debates, May 14, 1986, p. 13274; May 26, 2003, p. 6440; November 29, 2004, p. 2037.

[3]

See for example, Debates, March 17, 1986, pp. 11544-5; May 14, 2001, p. 3996; November 9, 2001, pp. 7218-9.

[4]

See for example, Debates, June 26, 1986, p. 14874; November 6, 2003, p. 9238; October 12, 2004, p. 223.

[5]

One such example is found in Debates, February 16, 1923, pp. 343-4.

[6]

Debates, June 14, 1989, pp. 3023-6. The point of order was raised on May 29 and 30, 1989 (Debates, pp. 2228, 2333-44).

[7]

See for example, Debates, June 26, 1986, p. 14873; November 28, 2001, p. 7617; September 17, 2003, p. 7463; November 15, 2004, p. 1338. Each return is given a sessional paper number and may be consulted at the Journals Branch or at the Library of Parliament.

[8]

Journals, November 16, 1962, pp. 285-7.

[9]

See for example, Debates, September 15, 2003, pp. 7352-3; March 22, 2004, p. 1525; Journals, September 15, 2003, pp. 948-9; March 22, 2004, pp. 187-8.

[10]

The transfer of questions directly from the Order Paper into an adjournment proceeding item has occurred only twice since that portion of the written rule was adopted in 1991. It was applied on November 20, 1992 (Journals, p. 2096; Debates, pp. 13720-1; November 24, 1992, pp. 13987-8) and on September 25, 1995 (Journals, p. 1941; Debates, pp. 14819, 14847-8).

[11]

See for example, Debates, April 7, 1880, pp. 1151-2.

[12]

Debates, May 31, 1895, cols. 1882-3.

[13]

See 1876 Rule 25.

[14]

Debates, September 16, 1896, cols. 1303-4.

[15]

Debates, March 21, 1900, cols. 2367-97.

[16]

Debates, July 10, 1906, cols. 7602-3.

[17]

See 1906 Rule 31.

[18]

Debates, March 16, 1885, p. 568.

[19]

Debates, April 29, 1910, cols. 8367-9. In later years, delays occurred between the deemed order and the tabling of the return (see for example, Debates, March 1, 1943, pp. 774-5).

[20]

Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 315.

[21]

Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 912-7.

[22]

Journals, September 26, 1961, pp. 952-3; September 27, 1961, p. 957.

[23]

Journals, April 10, 1962, p. 343; April 12, 1962, p. 350.

[24]

Stewart, p. 65.

[25]

Debates, July 17, 1963, p. 2295.

[26]

Stewart, p. 65.

[27]

See for instance, the sessions of 1964-65, 1968-69 and 1973-74.

[28]

See for instance, the session of 1974-76, when Tom Cossitt submitted a total of 718 Order Paper questions.

[29]

See for example, Debates, February 24, 1960, pp. 1401-2.

[30]

The proposals were tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, pp. 1653-4) and adopted on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710). The change stemmed from the recommendations contained on page 46 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, tabled on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).

[31]

See the Historical Summary for Standing Order 30(3) and (4) as well as that for Standing Order 30(6).

[32]

Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2909-10.

[33]

Debates, November 20, 1992, pp. 13720-1; November 24, 1992, pp. 13987-8; September 25, 1995, pp. 14819, 14847-8.

[34]

The issue had been brought to the Speaker’s attention several times. See for example, Debates, March 10, 1992, pp. 7936-8; December 8, 1998, pp. 11066-71; February 8, 1999, pp. 11531-3.

[35]

See pages 5-6 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, tabled on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and adopted on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3).

[36]

This procedure was first invoked in the House on January 28, 2002 (Debates, pp. 8335-6). For other examples of the application of this rule, see Debates, January 27, 2003, p. 2735; May 12, 2003, p. 6097; March 29, 2004, p. 1810.

Content Disclaimer