Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the remarks of members opposite. I would like to confirm that the member for Delta—South Richmond has been persistent on this matter. He does take a great interest in the questions which he has tabled.
However, I was very disappointed by the remarks having to do with the interpretation of the existing standing orders. There was some criticism of the existing standing orders. Mr. Speaker, I think you picked up on this. I do not think it is appropriate to bring in staff and have them use their best efforts to interpret the standing orders which have been set by this House. I hope that when you give some thought to this matter you discount those particular remarks of the member. In fact, in his second intervention he gave some indication that that was not what he meant. The standing orders exist. He has some criticism of them. It is the job of staff to interpret them. They have to interpret with respect to criteria. One criterion is length. The member has addressed that. As well, the government House leader gave the Speaker some other information on that point.
The number of questions has also been addressed. Again the staff do their best to address the length and number of questions.
Then there is the question of the 45 day time limit. When I last looked, a few days ago, the government had received upwards of 200 standing questions. It has answered close to three out of four of those questions. With respect to the 45 day limit, when I last looked, somewhere around 12% or 13% of the questions have not been answered within the 45 day limit. Those are the facts.
Sometimes members, such as this member who has a great interest in and uses this method very systematically, can put down questions which might involved detailed consultation with every federal department. That is quite different than answering a question which involves going to one of our departments, getting a response and coming back to the House of Commons. Therefore, this relatively small percentage of questions which take longer than 45 days to answer are questions which have a complication of some sort.
Another thing concerns me. We heard the opposition House leader speaking a moment ago. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that earlier this year we had the required review, a full-scale debate in the House on our standing orders. If this thing has been ticking like this, the way to deal with it is not to get up and attack the staff, it is to get up and deal with the House of Commons and the standing orders. I do not recall—and I could be wrong—in a full day of debate earlier this year this particular standing order being raised or these matters being raised. Perhaps the member has a case, but there is a way in which that case can be made.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has been mentioned. It is our standing committee which is responsible for the standing orders. Again, without getting up and attacking the staff of the House, it is possible for any member to write to the chair of that committee to raise concerns about either the standing order or about ways in which the standing orders are being interpreted by the staff, if the member has particular views.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will take these points into account when you consider the member's point of order.