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

[201]: See, for example, Debates, April 19, 1922, p. 944.
[202]: See, for example, Debates, November 21, 1977, p. 1063. In 1986, Speaker Bosley established that since time is scarce during Question Period, Members should avoid merely repeating questions that have already been asked, although Members may ask other questions on the same issue (Debates, February 24, 1986, p. 10879).
[203]: Debates, June 27, 1978, p. 6769.
[204]: Bourinot, 1^st ed., p. 349.
[205]: See, for example, Debates, November 5, 1990, pp. 15159-60; February 4, 1992, p. 6343; April 28, 1999, p. 14450; April 29, 1999, pp. 14492, 14497.
[206]: See, for example, Debates, February 6, 1987, pp. 3195-6, where the Chair ruled the remarks out of order and recognized another Member. See also Debates, September 17, 1992, pp. 13307-8; June 7, 1994, p. 4930.
[207]: See, for example, Debates, May 19, 1992, pp. 10910-1; February 8, 1993, pp. 15520, 15523.
[208]: See, for example, Debates, April 9, 1919, p. 1330; May 4, 1920, p. 1954; March 22, 1921, p. 1193. Alternatively, Speakers have sometimes suggested that a matter raised outside the question in a debate would more properly “form by itself a subject of a special substantive motion”. See Debates, March 27, 1923, p. 1553.
[209]: May, 22^nd ed., p. 346: “Stated generally, no matter ought to be raised in debate on a question which would be irrelevant if moved as an amendment, and no amendment should be used for importing arguments which would be irrelevant to the main question.”
[210]: See, for example, Debates, June 2, 1914, p. 4647.
[211]: May, 22^nd ed., p. 346.
[212]: For a discussion of the previous question, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”, and Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.
[213]: May, 20^th ed., p. 527.
[214]: See, for example, Debates, April 2, 1913, col. 7014; March 25, 1920, pp. 734, 750-1; May 26, 1978, p. 5795.
[215]: Debates, February 16, 1979, p. 3321. See also Debates, October 28, 1991, p. 4085.
[216]: Beauchesne, 6^th ed., pp. 199-200. This is a position which has been maintained by the Speaker on several occasions (Journals, November 14, 1949, pp. 237-8; Debates, May 6, 1959, p. 3402; Journals, October 15, 1962, pp. 76-7).
[217]: Standing Order 101(2). For additional information, see Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[218]: Debates, November 30, 1977, pp. 1418-20; November 30, 1978, pp. 1657, 1665-6; December 10, 1979, p. 2213; December 11, 1979, pp. 2239, 2244; September 30, 1991, pp. 2937, 2979.
[219]: It is not exaclty clear when this practice started; however, several Members claim that it was a custom which had grown during the years prior to the Second World War. See Debates, June 6, 1947, p. 3878; June 30, 1947, p. 4845; July 14, 1947, p. 5570.
[220]: Debates, May 11, 1960, pp. 3783-4, 3788-9.
[221]: Debates, March 23, 1965, p. 12693.
[222]: Debates, August 2, 1960, p. 7418.
[223]: See, for example, Debates, November 30, 1978, pp. 1657, 1665.
[224]: Beauchesne, 6^th ed., p. 211.
[225]: Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5).
[226]: See, for example, Debates, June 4, 1981, p. 10263.
[227]: Beauchesne, 6^th ed., p. 214; May, 22^nd ed., p. 544.
[228]: On one occasion, the Speaker corrected a Member who had assumed that he could talk on the amendment as if it were the third reading motion: “My ruling is that a member should only address himself to the last question submitted to the House… the fact that a member has not spoken to the third reading of the Bill is no justification for his travelling over the same ground on this question (the amendment) that he would have covered if he had spoken to the third reading of the Bill” (Debates, June 2, 1914, p. 4647).
[229]: Beauchesne, 6^th ed., p. 82.
[230]: See, for example, Debates, March 10, 1992, pp. 7949-50.
[231]: On December 13, 1976, the House appointed a special committee “to review the rights and immunities of Members of the House of Commons, to examine the procedures by which such matters are dealt with by the House, and to report on any changes it may be desirable to make” (Journals, p. 230). The Committee held three meetings during which it studied how the rights and immunities of Members are affected by the sub judice convention. The First Report to the House of the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members, presented on April 29, 1977 (Journals, pp. 720-9), remains the definitive study of the sub judice convention in Canada and is still used today by the Speaker when dealing with such matters arising in the House.
[232]: See Philip Laundy, “The Sub Judice Convention in the Canadian House of Commons”, The Parliamentarian, Vol. 57, No. 3, July 1976, pp. 211-4.
[233]: Debates, March 8, 1990, p. 9007.
[234]: Debates, March 22, 1983, pp. 24027-8.
[235]: See, for example, Debates, March 5, 1984, p. 1766; December 6, 1990, p. 16411; February 3, 1993, p. 15368.
[236]: See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Debates, October 4, 1971, pp. 8395-6; and Speaker Sauvé’s ruling, Debates, March 31, 1981, pp. 8793-4.
[237]: Journals, April 29, 1977, p. 728.
[238]: See Speaker Fraser’s rulings, Debates, June 1, 1989, p. 2419; November 7, 1989, p. 5655; and Deputy Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, March 16, 1999, p. 12911.
[239]: See Speaker Lemieux’s ruling, Debates, February 10, 1928, p. 366.
[240]: See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Debates, May 2, 1966, pp. 4583-4. In 1995, a Member rose on a point of order to contend that a Minister had contravened the convention during Question Period by commenting on a case under appeal in the Alberta courts. The Minister maintained that there was a difference between commenting on the facts of a case before the courts and stating the government’s opinion on a ruling rendered by the courts. In his response to the point of order, Speaker Parent ruled that he could not conclude that the Minister had contravened the convention by stating that the government disagreed with the ruling and planned to challenge the decision (Debates, April 6, 1995, pp. 11618-9).
[241]: See, for example, Debates, June 7, 1938, p. 3625.
[242]: See, for example, Debates, May 22, 1973, pp. 3990-1; July 9, 1973, pp. 5402-3.
[243]: See Speaker Jerome’s ruling, Debates, February 11, 1976, p. 10844. This view was reiterated in a ruling given in 1987, although Speaker Fraser cautioned that a contrary ruling could be made if the Chair felt the question was about to prejudice the rights of either litigant (Debates, December 7, 1987, p. 11542). See also Debates, April 11, 1991, pp. 19316-7.
[244]: See, for example, Debates, April 6, 1995, pp. 11618-9; March 16, 1999, p. 12911.
[245]: See Speakers’ rulings, Debates, March 5, 1947, pp. 1051-2; June 12, 1951, p. 3975; November 2, 1951, p. 662. In a 1933 incident, a Member attempted to debate charges brought against a county court judge whose conduct had been referred to a commission of inquiry. Speaker Black did not allow the discussion, even though the commission was not defined as a court of record. See Debates, March 30, 1933, pp. 3558-9.
[246]: Black’s Law Dictionary, 5^th ed., St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co., 1979, p. 319.
[247]: Debates, March 21, 1950, p. 949; October 17, 1957, p. 119; May 2, 1966, pp. 4589-90; Journals, November 9, 1978, p. 128. Speaker Jerome noted that “the body carrying out [the inquiry] is an investigatory body and not a judicial body coming to decision.… no decision of that body could in any way be prejudiced, surely, by a debate or discussion here” (Debates, October 31, 1977, p. 433).
[248]: Journals, April 29, 1977, p. 728. For an example of when the Speaker has applied this principle, see Debates, June 8, 1987, pp. 6817-20 (opposition motion on a Supply day).
[249]: Journals, April 29, 1977, p. 728.
[250]: See Speaker Bosley’s ruling, Debates, January 27, 1986, p. 10194.