House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit

2000 Edition — More information …

13. Rules of Order and Decorum

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[251]: See, for example, Debates, February 14, 1986, pp. 10828-9; December 18, 1990, pp. 16901, 16905-6; October 11, 1991, p. 3643; December 4, 1996, p. 7087.
[252]: See, for example, Debates, June 1, 1989, p. 2422; November 7, 1989, pp. 5654-6; June 12, 1996, p. 3711; October 20, 1997, pp. 829-30; February 13, 1998, p. 3854.
[253]: Debates, November 21, 1990, p. 15526.
[254]: In 1996, Speaker Parent advised the House that Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg) would be rising to make a solemn declaration to the House. The Speaker cautioned Members that the statement was not to incite debate. The Speaker subsequently interrupted Mr. Jacob and ruled that “the words being used [in the statement] tend more toward a debate than a solemn declaration.” The Member was not allowed to continue. See Debates, June 18, 1996, p. 4027. In 1989, a Minister rose on a matter of personal privilege to clarify a statement which he had made the previous day. Following the Minister’s statement, Speaker Fraser recognized the critic from the Official Opposition to respond to the statement. However, when the Minister began to engage in a debate with the opposition Member, the Speaker closed off the remarks and advised the House that Members could seek further information from the Minister on another occasion. See Debates, May 11, 1989, pp. 1571-3.
[255]: See, for example, Debates, March 15, 1984, pp. 2138-9; May 12, 1986, p. 13149; February 3, 1988, p. 12581; September 24, 1990, p. 13215.
[256]: See, for example, Debates, November 21, 1990, pp. 15526-9; April 9, 1991, pp. 19231-2; February 18, 1992, p. 7205; November 26, 1992, pp. 14113-5; January 24, 1994, p. 197.
[257]: See, for example, Debates, March 17, 1998, p. 4970.
[258]: Redlich, Vol. II, p. 146.
[259]: See Speaker Marcil’s ruling, Journals, February 20, 1911, p. 190.
[260]: Standing Order 10.
[261]: See, for example, Debates, March 30, 1992, pp. 9036-7; November 17, 1994, p. 7951; October 23, 1997, p. 1031; February 16, 1998, p. 3947; March 16, 1999, p. 12913.
[262]: See, for example, Debates, April 27, 1989, p. 1003; June 4, 1992, p. 11372.
[263]: See Debates, March 23, 1999, p. 13372.
[264]: Standing Order 19. In the early years after Confederation, the rule was not specific about who called Members to order and, as a result, Members called each other to order (see, for example, Debates, March 23, 1868, pp. 387-8; March 7, 1878, p. 808), but the practice eventually evolved to the less direct method of Members raising points of order for decision by the Chair. It was not until 1925 that a special committee recognized that “This rule seems to state that a member may be called to order by another member…” (Journals, May 29, 1925, p. 353). The committee recommended clarification of the rule. The rule was eventually changed in 1927 to its present form (Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 326-7).
[265]: Standing Order 19.
[266]: The rule read as follows: “A Member called to Order shall sit down, but may afterwards explain. The House, if appealed to, shall decide on the case, but without debate. If there be no appeal, the decision of the Chair shall be final.” (Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule No. 12.)
[267]: See Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7465-7.
[268]: See, for example, Debates, February 11, 1982, pp. 14899-904; February 12, 1982, pp. 14969-70; March 2, 1982, pp. 15532-9; February 14, 1983, p. 22816; October 27, 1983, pp. 28361-77. In one instance, a Member was named and ejected from the House over the issue (Debates, October 31, 1983, pp. 28591-4).
[269]: See, for example, Debates, December 8, 1995, p. 17446; March 16, 1999, p. 12913.
[270]: For more information on points of order during the Adjournment Proceedings, see Chapter 11, “Questions”.
[271]: Standing Order 47.
[272]: See, for example, Debates, January 14, 1971, p. 2401.
[273]: See Item Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 373), and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399). See also Speaker Jerome’s ruling, Journals, April 14, 1975, pp. 439-41.
[274]: See, for example, Debates, December 7, 1977, pp. 1649-52; December 7, 1979, pp. 2134-5.
[275]: See, for example, Debates, April 19, 1983, pp. 24624-6.
[276]: Journals, February 6, 1986, p. 1648; February 13, 1986, p. 1710.
[277]: See, for example, Debates, April 4, 1989, p. 32; June 19, 1992, pp. 12437, 12448-9; February 9, 1993, p. 15637.
[278]: Standing Order 47.
[279]: See, for example, Debates, September 27, 1990, p. 13481; March 16, 1999, p. 12913; April 30, 1999, p. 14552; May 3, 1999, p. 14628; May 4, 1999, p. 14680.
[280]: See, for example, Debates, December 4, 1992, p. 14633; June 21, 1994, p. 5698.
[281]: See, for example, Debates, February 14, 1969, p. 5560; March 9, 1993, p. 16747. For information on extending a sitting, see Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”. For information on the moving of dilatory motions, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
[282]: See, for example, Debates, June 15, 1983, pp. 26394-5.
[283]: See, for example, Debates, May 5, 1982, p. 17067.
[284]: See, for example, Debates, September 24, 1998, p. 8350.
[285]: See, for example, Debates, May 3, 1999, p. 14573; May 4, 1999, p. 14689.
[286]: See, for example, Debates, May 3, 1999, p. 14603.
[287]: See, for example, Debates, February 18, 1998, p. 4079; March 24, 1999, p. 13449.
[288]: See, for example, Debates, May 3, 1999, p. 14608.
[289]: See, for example, Debates, April 30, 1999, p. 14550.
[290]: See, for example, Debates, September 11, 1985, p. 6498.
[291]: See, for example, Debates, June 19, 1992, pp. 12472-3; March 5, 1999, p. 12508; April 23, 1999, p. 14287.
[292]: See, for example, Debates, October 25, 1989, p. 5096; June 19, 1995, p. 14150; March 13, 1996, p. 666.
[293]: See, for example, Debates, November 26, 1996, p. 6770.
[294]: See, for example, Debates, February 19, 1929, pp. 266-7; December 7, 1945, pp. 3133-4; April 4, 1946, pp. 572-3; April 12, 1962, p. 2909. For an exception to this rule, see Debates, March 9, 1998, p. 4586.
[295]: Beauchesne, 4^th ed., p. 53.
[296]: Points of order have sometimes been resolved prior to the announcement of the result of the vote (see, for example, Debates, July 10, 1956, p. 5845; June 20, 1995, pp. 14259-60). Members who were unable to be in the Chamber for a vote sometimes take the opportunity to rise on points of order after the vote to explain how they would have voted had they been present (see, for example, Debates, October 29, 1991, p. 4176; February 23, 1994, p. 1729). For additional information, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
[297]: Standing Order 10.
[298]: See, for example, Journals, July 8, 1969, pp. 1319-20.
[299]: See, for example, Debates, October 4, 1995, pp. 15219-21; October 23, 1995, pp. 15671-2.
[300]: Standing Order 19.