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

[51]: Debates, June 16, 1994, pp. 5437-40, in particular p. 5439; November 7, 1996, pp. 6269-72. On one occasion, Members complained that an Independent Member posed a question at a time when the floor should have been given to a Member of a recognized party. See Debates, December 12, 1996, pp. 7470-3, for a discussion on this issue.
[52]: Debates, October 10, 1997, pp. 784-5; October 24, 1997, p. 1101.
[53]: See, for example, Debates, October 30, 1996, pp. 5885-6; November 6, 1996, pp. 6186, 6188-9; April 16, 1997, pp. 9796-9.
[54]: For many years prior to a definitive ruling on the subject by Speaker Jerome, Parliamentary Secretaries had been allowed to pose oral questions (Debates, November 5, 1974, pp. 1059-64). In ruling that Parliamentary Secretaries possessed the right to ask oral questions, Speaker Lamoureux nonetheless questioned the propriety of this procedure given that Parliamentary Secretaries might be placed “in the position of both answering and asking questions, to the extent where we might have a Parliamentary Secretary asking a question of another Parliamentary Secretary” (Debates, March 6, 1973, pp. 1932-3). Speaker Fraser conceded that any recognition of Parliamentary Secretaries to ask questions during Question Period had been entirely inadvertent and unintentional on his part (Debates, October 1, 1991, p. 3001).
[55]: Beauchesne, 4^th ed., p. 314.
[56]: Standing Order 47 specifies that points of order are not to be considered during Question Period.
[57]: Journals, April 14, 1975, p. 441.
[58]: See, for example, Debates, April 4, 1989, p. 32; February 9, 1993, p. 15637.
[59]: See, for example, Debates, March 24, 1993, p. 17482. The matter was eventually resolved at the conclusion of Question Period (see Debates, pp. 17486-8).
[60]: Standing Order 37(1).
[61]: On April 1, 1993, the Standing Committee on House Management recommended a new set of guidelines respecting Question Period which would have superseded all previous guidelines. The report was not considered by the House (see Eighty-First Report of the Standing Committee on House Management, pp. 15-6, presented in the House on April 1, 1993 (Journals, p. 2774)).
[62]: Debates, February 24, 1986, pp. 10878-9.
[63]: Debates, February 24, 1986, p. 10879.
[64]: See, for example, Debates, February 12, 1992, p. 6860.
[65]: See, for example, Debates, June 13, 1996, p. 3824; June 17, 1996, p. 3926; October 3, 1997, pp. 459-60; May 25, 1999, pp. 15254-5. In 1986, opposition Members attempted to ask the Regional Industrial Expansion Minister Sinclair Stevens questions relating to an alleged conflict of interest. The Speaker ruled the questions out of order on the grounds that they did not pertain to Mr. Stevens’ responsibilities as a Minister. He further clarified that questions of a purely personal nature are out of order, even if the borderline between what is personal and what is ministerial is not always evident (Debates, May 8, 1986, pp. 13081-2).
[66]: See, for example, Debates, November 5, 1990, p. 15127.
[67]: While the Speaker has occasionally ruled hypothetical questions out of order (see, for example, Debates, May 16, 1995, p. 12681), Members are often asked to rephrase their question (see, for example, Debates, November 29, 1990, p. 15980). The Speaker has also given a Minister the option to reply or not to the question (see, for example, Debates, October 7, 1991, p. 3387; April 14, 1994, p. 3048; December 3, 1997, p. 2652).
[68]: See, for example, Debates, September 21, 1995, p. 14726.
[69]: See, for example, Debates, June 5, 1991, p. 1201.
[70]: Standing Order 18. See, for example, Debates, July 25, 1988, p. 17914; October 5, 1990, p. 13858; December 13, 1990, p. 16693; September 19, 1991, p. 2401.
[71]: Standing Order 18. See, for example, Debates, September 27, 1990, p. 13513; February 24, 1994, pp. 1799-800.
[72]: See, for example, Debates, February 3, 1994, pp. 892-3; October 16, 1995, p. 15399.
[73]: See, for example, Debates, May 2, 1994, pp. 3762-3.
[74]: See, for example, Debates, February 28, 1983, pp. 23278-9; June 10, 1993, p. 20692; May 2, 1994, pp. 3762-3; November 3, 1997, p. 1474; September 28, 1998, p. 8469.
[75]: See, for example, Debates, April 6, 1995, pp. 11618-9; February 13, 1998, p. 3854. This topic is discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.
[76]: See, for example, Debates, April 14, 1987, p. 5144.
[77]: See, for example, Debates, August 22, 1988, pp. 18615-6.
[78]: See, for example, Debates, September 26, 1988, p. 19618.
[79]: In early 1994, Randy White (Fraser Valley West) asked Finance Minister Paul Martin a question on behalf of one of his constituents. Speaker Parent advised the Member that questions should not be posed by people who are not Members (Debates, January 24, 1994, pp. 234-5).
[80]: See, for example, Debates, April 29, 1996, p. 2067; September 30, 1997, p. 289.
[81]: However, the House of Commons retains the right to raise and discuss any matter it deems necessary and appropriate. See Debates, April 6, 1995, p. 11618.
[82]: Journals, December 13, 1976, p. 230.
[83]: Journals, April 29, 1977, pp. 720-9. The sub judice convention is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[84]: Journals, April 29, 1977, p. 728.
[85]: Debates, April 6, 1995, pp. 11618-9. A Member had raised a point of order contending that the Minister of Justice had contravened the sub judice convention during Question Period by commenting on a case under appeal in the Alberta courts. The Speaker concluded that the Minister had not contravened the convention when he stated that the federal government disagreed with the court’s decision and planned to challenge it. See also Debates, October 20, 1997, pp. 829-30.
[86]: Debates, November 7, 1989, pp. 5654-7. On this occasion, Bob Kaplan (York Centre) had asked the Speaker to suspend the convention in relation to a criminal case before the courts involving the 1989 federal budget leak, arguing that his questions were not material to the criminal proceedings. The Chair did not accept that the proceedings in a criminal trial could be split into two parts, with the convention only applying to one of the parts.
[87]: Journals, April 29, 1977, p. 728. See, for example,Debates, December 18, 1990, pp. 16901, 16905-6.
[88]: Beauchesne, 4^th ed., p. 314.
[89]: Standing Order 37(2) was adopted on June 27, 1985 (Journals, pp. 914, 919). For examples of questions addressed to the Board of Internal Economy, see Debates, March 11, 1992, p. 7979; November 19, 1992, p. 13654; February 2, 1994, pp. 791-2.
[90]: Debates, January 31, 1994, p. 637.
[91]: Debates, May 20, 1970, pp. 7126-7; November 4, 1981, p. 12499; March 9, 1987, p. 3955; May 20, 1992, p. 10934.
[92]: Debates, May 30, 1990, p. 12048; June 4, 1991, p. 1148; March 16, 1994, p. 2361; April 27, 1994, p. 3574; September 19, 1994, p. 5816; October 2, 1998, pp. 8700-1; June 3, 1999, p. 15807.
[93]: See, for example, Debates, April 18, 1985, pp. 3865-6; January 17, 1986, p. 9881.
[94]: See, for example, Debates, September 20, 1983, pp. 27295-6.
[95]: See, for example, Debates, November 27, 1989, pp. 6263, 6266.
[96]: See, for example, Debates, June 4, 1991, p. 1148; May 17, 1995, p. 12725.
[97]: See, for example, Debates, June 5, 1984, p. 4378; January 17, 1986, p. 9881.
[98]: Debates, January 15, 1986, p. 9793.
[99]: Debates, April 14, 1975, p. 440. See also Debates, March 25, 1991, p. 18936; October 21, 1994, p. 7033.
[100]: Debates, May 9, 1984, pp. 3552-4.