Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to intervene on this point of order. The hon. member for Delta—South Richmond does the House a service by raising this and by being persistent in raising it. I recall speaking to a similar point of order not so long ago.
I was vice-chair of the McGrath committee and, therefore, in some way responsible for this rule whereby members of parliament can only put four questions on the order paper in return for the prompt answering of those questions within 45 days. We actually recommended 30 days, but what eventually came out of it was 45 days. The idea was that in return for limiting the number of questions there would be a prompt answering.
Other parliaments answer within 13 days or within other periods of time which are much shorter than is the rule here. It is not just a question of confidence, it is also a question of respect for the rules of the House of Commons and for members of parliament.
One of the reasons people want to be members of parliament is so they can put questions to the government and get answers. If we put questions and cannot get answers, if it takes as long for us to get answers as anybody else, then what is the point of being a member of parliament? We are no different than anyone else outside the Chamber. We get elected to this place so that we might have access to information and to answers from the government that other people do not have because they are not elected to this place. To leave the answering of these questions for so long, the government shows a disrespect for members of parliament and for the rules of the House of Commons. It is just not good enough to keep getting up and saying that this question cannot be answered and that question cannot be answered.
It is part of the general malaise. The government does not respect the standing orders. It does not answer questions. People leak committee reports. The Speaker stands up to try to get order. People keep on yapping and yelling. What is going on around here, Mr. Speaker? It is not just Christmas. There is a general malaise of systemic disrespect for the rules that we put in place.
The government makes announcements. It does not even go across to the press gallery. Now it goes all the way to Edmonton to make announcements about a national youth job strategy. We have complained about the government showing disrespect for the House. This is all part of the same piece.
I would like to support the member in his point of order. He has made some helpful suggestions by noting practices that are established in other parliaments which put us to shame, both collectively and put the government to shame in terms of the amount of time it takes to answer questions.
The other point the member makes is that if our questions are not answered we cannot ask more questions. If the government is going to persist in not answering questions, then I think the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs or some other body should look at other means by which members can continue to put questions on the order paper.
But then we would really be back to the old system. If members can put more than four questions on the order paper because the four that they have already put on have not been answered in the 45 day period, then the government will say “Oh well, they are happy. They got their questions on the order paper. They have eight or nine questions, so we will take longer to answer them”.
That is one of the dangers in that particular suggestion. In the absence of the government actually answering the questions, it becomes a way of restricting a member's right to ask further questions.
That is all I have to say on the matter. But I urge you, Mr. Speaker, when you discuss this point of order with your colleague, to make some helpful suggestions and to indicate very strongly that there is an obligation on the part of the government to respect the standing orders of the House of Commons.