Rules of Debate / Order and Decorum

Points of order: impact on proceedings; allotted amount of time; use of titles

June 23, 2011

Debates, p. 836

On June 23, 2011, Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay) rose on a point of order during debate on Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, noting that Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke) had used the name of a Member, rather than the Member’s title, in the House. Advised by the Acting Speaker (Barry Devolin) to use the Member’s title, Mrs. Gallant apologized. Mr. Angus rose again on a point of order to ask that the time taken up by his points of order be added to the questions and comments period then under way.^[1]

Resolution

The Acting Speaker ruled immediately. Acknowledging Members’ right to raise points of order, he reminded the House of the difference between points of order concerning matters of debate and legitimate ones concerning matters of procedure. He further noted that it was the role of the Chair to decide whether time taken up by points of order should be added to a Member’s speaking time. He explained that when points of order were pertinent and succinct, time would not be added but if, in the opinion of the Chair, it appeared that a point of order was being raised in an attempt to obstruct debate, time would usually be added.

Decision of the Chair

The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Timmins—James Bay has risen on a second point of order. Maybe I will take this opportunity to clarify for all Members in the House a couple of issues: one has to do with points [of] order; the second has to do with the clock and whether it continues or stops when a point of order has been raised. This second issue has come up a couple of times in the last half hour.

I would like to remind all hon. Members that at any point during proceedings, with the exception of Question Period, Members have the right to stand and raise points of order. This is an important right that all Members have, and I think we would all agree that the Speaker needs to respect that right and immediately go to that person.

As all hon. Members will know, there are times when a point of order is obviously legitimate, when an issue is raised that clearly needs to be addressed. As an example of a legitimate point of order, I will not use the one just raised by the Member for Timmins—James Bay. I will use the one raised a couple of minutes ago regarding the use of a Member’s name in the House. It has been my experience that the use of another Member’s name is usually inadvertent and not deliberate. Nevertheless, this needs to be addressed. Therefore, that point of order is dealt with by the Chair.

It is also often the case that Members will rise using the process of a point of order to stop debate for something that the Chair determines is not a legitimate point of order. In this case, I appreciate that the Member for Timmins—James Bay has recently provided us with an example of this type of point of order in his second intervention. The Chair is also required to deal with whether something is debate rather than a procedural issue or a point of order.

This brings us to the second point, which is the question of the clock and whether, when a point of order is raised, the clock continues or not. I would point out to all hon. Members that it is the Chair who decides how long speeches are and that the clock is a guideline to the Chair. But at the end of the day it is actually the person in the chair who determines when it is the end of someone’s speech and whether something can be added or not.

The general practice is that, if the point of order raised is legitimate, made quickly, and pertains to the business before the House, the clock does not stop and the time continues. If, however, in the view of the Chair, the point of order is being raised in an attempt to slow things down, to take away from the presentation, or to deprive another Member of the opportunity to raise a point of order, the Chair has the right to add that time.

For example, when a Member is making a 10-minute speech and a Member from another party raises a point of order and carries on at length on what does not seem to be a legitimate point of order, the Member is not punished and time is added to the Member’s speech. Conversely, if a Member of the same party as the person making the presentation uses the same approach, often the clock is not stopped. I am sure all hon. Members will agree that the Chair has an incentive not to encourage mischief but to respect the right of Members to use the point of order process when it is appropriate. Members, however, must not abuse this process in an attempt to reduce or increase the speaking time of a colleague.

This is the process that is used. In the last 15 minutes, there have been examples of all these situations. Please let me assure everyone that all Chair Occupants do their best to do this job fairly. The Chair is charged with making sure that the rights of all hon. Members are respected, and that those who have an allotted amount of time to make a presentation are not punished by having their time reduced by the actions of others, particularly when it is determined that this is the entire purpose of the point of order.

Postscript

The Acting Speaker confirmed that, in the present case, the clock had been stopped during the point of order and ruling, and he subsequently resumed the questions and comments period.