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

[201]: Debates, May 12, 1971, p. 5733.
[202]: Standing Order 39(1).
[203]: Debates, May 5, 1971, p. 5515. See also Debates, February 25, 1991, p. 17590; March 8, 1991, p. 18237.
[204]: See, for example, Debates, November 18, 1994, p. 7993-4; December 13, 1994, pp. 9003-6; December 15, 1994, pp. 9116-8.
[205]: Debates, October 2, 1991, p. 3147. The government has circumvented this procedural limitation by having a government Member place a question on the Order Paper requesting cost amounts for the preparation of responses to written questions for specified time periods (see, for example, Debates, April 7, 1992, pp. 9410-1; May 8, 1992, p. 10435; June 19, 1992, p. 12455; April 26, 1993, p. 18462).
[206]: Debates, February 21, 1990, p. 8618; May 15, 1991, p. 100; February 9, 1995, pp. 9425-7; May 27, 1998, pp. 7281-3; February 8, 1999, pp. 11531-3. In the 1995 case, John Cummins (Delta) raised a question of privilege on December 13, 1994, in regard to the accuracy of the response he had received to a written question on November 18, 1994 (Debates, November 18, 1994, pp. 7993-4; December 13, 1994, pp. 9003-6). Two days later, the government supplied the Member with a supplementary answer to his question (Debates, December 15, 1994, pp. 9116-8). Later that same day, Mr. Cummins rose on a question of privilege to protest that the supplemental answer contained discrepancies (Debates, December 15, 1994, pp. 9153-5). On February 9, 1995, the Speaker ruled that it was a matter of interpretation of the wording of the question placed on the Order Paper which had subsequently led to a disagreement over certain facts in the answer supplied by the government (Debates, pp. 9425-7).
[207]: Debates, February 28, 1983, p. 23278.
[208]: Standing Order 39(5)(a).
[209]: The rule change limiting the number of questions to four may have contributed to broader questions requiring more extensive research.
[210]: Debates, May 18, 1989, p. 1891; March 10, 1992, p. 7938; May 6, 1996, pp. 2366-7; February 8, 1999, pp. 11531-3.
[211]: Debates, May 18, 1989, p. 1890.
[212]: Standing Order 39(5)(b). The Adjournment Proceedings are discussed in detail earlier in this chapter.
[213]: Standing Order 39(7).
[214]: Consent has been denied on occasion (Debates, June 1, 1992, pp. 11169-70; March 13, 1995, p. 10397). The same request was later made and granted (Debates, June 5, 1992, p. 11477; March 17, 1995, p. 10671).
[215]: See, for example, Journals, September 23, 1994, p. 725; December 13, 1996, pp. 1018-9. The government has also presented a revised return (see Journals, April 2, 1998, p. 664).
[216]: Journals, November 16, 1962, pp. 285-7, in particular p. 286. See also Debates, November 22, 1994, pp. 8077-8, where a Member rose on a point of order to complain that the government had tabled only one part of an answer to his question and the government responded that the responses would not be forthcoming because they were substantial. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader suggested that if the Member insisted on additional information, the question could be placed again on the Order Paper.
[217]: Standing Order 39(6). The rule has been invoked only once, on February 16, 1923 (Debates, pp. 343-4).
[218]: Debates, June 14, 1989, pp. 3023-6. See also Debates, May 30, 1989, pp. 2333-44.
[219]: Standing Order 39(5)(b). See, for example, Debates, November 20, 1992, p. 13720; September 25, 1995, p. 14819.
[220]: Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2904-10, in particular pp. 2909-10.
[221]: For a discussion on this matter, see Debates, March 10, 1992, pp. 7936-8.
[222]: Debates, April 12, 1991, p. 19459.