As part of the decision-making process, debate begins when the Speaker, upon receipt of a motion in writing, duly seconded, proposes the question to the House. Debate ends after all relevant aspects of the question have been considered, including amendments and subamendments if any, and the original (or amended) question is put to the House for a vote. Between these two points, a number of rules operate to direct the proper flow of debate and protect it from excess. In general, these rules guarantee a Member's right to speak, at the same time as they limit what may be said when, by whom and for how long.
What is debatable?
Over the years, the range of debatable motions has become limited to 16 types of motions. All other motions are decided without debate or amendment. The list of debatable motions is provided in Standing Order 67, and includes every motion:
1.standing on the order of proceedings for the day, except as
otherwise provided in the Standing Orders;
2.for concurrence in a committee report;
3.for the previous question;
4.for second reading and reference to committee of a bill;
5.for consideration of report stage amendments;
6.for third reading and passage of a bill;
7.for consideration of Senate amendments to House of
Commons bills;
8.for a conference with the Senate;
9.for adjournment of the House to consider an urgent matter;
10.for the consideration of a Ways and Means order (the
Budget);
11.for the consideration of any supply motion;
12.for the adoption in Committee of the Whole of any motion,
clause, section, preamble or title under consideration;
13.for the appointment of a committee;
14.for reference to a committee of any report or return tabled in
the House;
15.for the suspension of any Standing Order unless otherwise
provided; and
16.such other motion, made during Routine Proceedings,
concerning the operations and business of the House.
Who may speak?
Any Member who rises to "catch the Speaker's eye" and is recognized by the Chair may speak during debate, and despite various conventions and informal arrangements to ensure the representation of all parties in the debate, the decision as to who may speak is ultimately the Speaker's. However, if two Members rise simultaneously, the Speaker's choice may be altered by the House, on a motion that the other Member "be now heard". The motion must be moved before the Member given the floor by the Speaker has begun his or her remarks. The motion is not debatable; if carried, the Member named in the motion may speak; if defeated, the Member originally recognized retains the floor.
A limitation on who may speak during debate is imposed by the rule that no Member may speak twice, although two exceptions are allowed: a Member may speak a second time in order to explain something in his or her first speech which may have been misunderstood; second, the mover of a substantive motion or a motion for second reading of a bill may exercise the right of reply and speak again as the last speaker during the debate. In recognizing a Member in this case, the Speaker informs the House that the Member's second speech closes the debate.
A further refinement of the rule that no Member may speak twice during debate follows from the fact that the mover and the Member who speaks to second a motion and the mover and the Member who speaks to second any amendment to the main motion are deemed to have spoken once and thus may not speak again. In practice, however, the seconder is often allowed to speak again later in the debate if he or she has merely indicated by a nod or gesture a willingness to second the motion without actually having spoken. However, once the question on an amendment has been proposed from the Chair, any Member who speaks subsequently, speaks to the amendment and not to the main motion.
What may be said?
The largest restraint upon Members' rights to say what they wish is imposed by rules protecting the House against irrelevant or repetitious debate. These rules are explained more fully in the next section. Furthermore, Members may not refer to other Members by name; nor to their characters, personalities or motives. Although several authorities provide lists of unparliamentary language, they are by no means exhaustive, and judgement in this matter is at the discretion of the Speaker. It is clear, however, that Members may not speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, the Royal Family, the Governor General or members of the judiciary; nor use offensive or threatening language against either House or its Members; nor refer to previous decisions of either House; nor comment disrespectfully on the powers of either House.
Aside from these rules of normal respect and courtesy, two further restrictions apply to what may be said during debate: the sub judice convention (explained more fully in Section 12.(c)) and the rule of anticipation. The sub judice convention prevents Members from referring to matters currently before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The rule of anticipation prevents a Member from attempting to pre-empt a decision on a matter already on the Order Paper by introducing a second identical matter or one similar enough to be considered the same. When a point of order is raised in this regard, the Speaker's decision is guided by the principle that the most effective form of proceeding with the matter ought to take precedence. A descending scale of values for determining the more effective form has thus been established, whereby bills precede motions, which in turn precede amendments.
Finally, Members should address the House without reading from a written speech, although Members may read short quotations from printed material. A Member's maiden speech and the Minister of Finance's Budget speech are the two notable exceptions to this rule.
Length of Debate
The Standing Orders provide time limits on the overall length of debate on some questions, and on the length of time an individual Minister or Member may speak during such debate. The Standing Orders also allow the Government to limit debate through the use of closure (applicable to any motion) and time allocation (applicable to any bill). These rules are explained more fully in Section 12.(b).
12.(a) Repetition and Relevance
Repetition, notably in the three readings of a bill, is an inherent feature of the legislative process and consequently its occurrence is almost inevitable during some stage of debate. Irrelevance in debate is also difficult to restrain in view of the complexity and wide-ranging nature of House business, and the fact that apparently irrelevant remarks may relate, however indirectly, to the question. Consequently, the rules respecting relevance and repetition are difficult to define and to enforce. If applied rigidly, they can severely curtail debate; if used improperly, they have a serious effect on a Member's right to be heard.
Repetition
The rule prohibiting repetition is designed primarily to safeguard the right of the House to reach a decision. An impediment to this right, such as an inefficient use of the time of the House, constitutes a violation of the rule severe enough to call a Member to order. A Member reading letters, even in support of his or her argument, has been ruled an inefficient use of the time of the House. A Member may be called to order for at least two other transgressions of the rule against repetition:
(a) a Member may not refer to a decision or vote by the House in the same session; (b) a Member may not repeat the words nor duplicate the substance of an argument raised previously on the same question, whether by that Member or by another Member. This latter restriction applies to Members' remarks only within the same stage of debate; in the case of a bill, however, arguments advanced at one stage may legitimately be presented again at another stage.
In calling a Member to order, the Speaker may warn the Member that he or she may be directed to discontinue speaking if repetition persists. Should a Member persist, the Speaker can carry out the warning, in which case the Member must resume his or her seat, and the Chair will recognize another Member or, if debate is concluded, the Speaker puts the question. In the unlikely event that a Member disregards the Speaker's instruction, the Speaker has the authority to "name" that Member.
Relevance
The rule of relevance may be applied when a Member's remarks do not adhere as closely as possible to the question before the House. In general, a Member's remarks are irrelevant if their connection to the main question is not immediately apparent; or if, having called a Member to order for straying from the question, the Speaker is still not satisfied with the Member's explanation of the relationship; or if what the Member has raised might properly form by itself the subject of a substantive motion. The same principle that insists that debate must be relevant to the main motion applies equally to amendments, which must also be relevant to the main motion. Thus, arguments ruled irrelevant during debate are similarly irrelevant if introduced as the substance of an amendment. Even if the amendment proposes to replace all words in the main motion after "that", debate is restricted to the main motion and the amendment; other alternative propositions are irrelevant.
The rule of relevance applies especially to the various stages of bills. Because each stage has its more or less limited range of debate, the Speaker may use the following limits in applying the rule of relevance: (a) at second reading in the traditional legislative process, where debate is limited to the principle of the bill, debate on individual clauses is out of order (with amending legislation, debate which touches on parts of the Act other than those affected by the proposed legislation has similarly been ruled out of order); (b) at report stage, despite the resemblance to debate in committee, where wide-ranging discussion is traditionally permitted on Clause 1, such discussion at this stage has been ruled irrelevant; (c) at third reading, although lengthy debate here is rare, debate is irrelevant that is not strictly confined to the contents of the bill.
During debate on the motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and on the motion which begins debate on the Budget, a much wider application of the rule of relevance is allowed than on other motions. However, where amendments to either motion are involved, the principle of relevance is usually applied more strictly. During debate on the Address in Reply, the Speaker usually makes no effort to apply the rule of relevance. Furthermore, although speeches during the Budget debate must be relevant to the main motion, the terms of the motion itself ("That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government") permit Members broad scope, and allow a wide application of the rule of relevance.
12.(b) Closure and Time Allocation
Closure
The contending parliamentary principles --that the majority has the right to secure the transaction of business and the minority the right to be heard --frequently conflict when the House is dealing with controversial matters. The Government has had the option of using closure to break such impasses since it was first introduced by Prime Minister Borden in 1913 to limit debate on the Naval Aid Bill. Although applicable to any debatable matter, closure is now usually invoked only when substantive motions are before the House, since the Government may limit debate on bills by use of time allocation procedures.
A 24-hour oral notice is required for the Government's motion to closure debate on a question before the House. Notice may be given on the same day the original motion is moved and the consistent practice has been that debate on the original motion must already have begun. Thus, the closure motion "That debate shall not be further adjourned" may be moved only if debate on the original question before the House has been adjourned at least once; the closure motion is not debatable. The motion itself is moved immediately before the Order of the Day for resuming an adjourned debate is called.
Once a Minister has moved closure, the Speaker immediately puts the question to the House. If it is resolved in the affirmative, debate on the original motion which is the object of closure resumes, now subject, however, to two restrictions not applicable to general debate: (a) no Member may speak more than once nor longer than 20 minutes; and (b) no Member may rise to speak after 11:00 p.m. After the last person has spoken, the Speaker puts to the House all questions necessary to dispose of the motion, including any amendments or subamendments. A Member who has spoken to the main motion previous to the adoption of closure may subsequently speak to an amendment or subamendment, but no Member having spoken once to the motion after closure was moved may speak again to an amendment or subamendment.
Time Allocation
The three conditions under which the Government may move to allocate time are specified in Standing Order 78. Although time allocation contains certain elements of closure, it allows the Government to negotiate with the opposition parties to establish in advance a timetable for the consideration of a public bill at one or more legislative stages. Under Standing Order 78(1), the Government must have obtained an accord among representatives of all the parties for an allocation of time; under Standing Order 78(2), a majority of the party representatives must have agreed. In either of these cases, the Minister may then move the motion for time allocation without notice, setting forth the terms of the accord.
A motion under Standing Order 78(1) may outline a timetable for a bill through one or more stages, and is not debatable. A motion under Standing Order 78(2) may outline a timetable for only one stage, but may include the report and third reading stages if consistent with Standing Order 76.1(10). The motion is not subject to debate or amendment, and the Speaker puts the question on the motion immediately.
In the event that an agreement to allocate time cannot be reached under Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2), Standing Order 78(3) provides that the Government may propose its own timetable, with the same restrictions as apply under Standing Order 78(2). Motions based on Standing Order 78(3) are subject to the following limitations: (a) notice that an agreement cannot be reached and that the Government intends to move time allocation must be given orally at a previous sitting; (b) time allocated for any stage must be consistent with Standing Order 76.1(10) and may not be less than one sitting day, though the day on which the motion is adopted is counted as one sitting day if moved and carried at the beginning of Government Orders as is the case with Standing Order 78(2); and (c) as with Standing Order 78(2), the motion is not debatable or amendable and the Speaker puts the question on the motion immediately.
12.(c) The Sub Judice Convention
For the sake of the judicial process and in the interest of justice, a convention has developed in parliamentary practice whereby Members refrain from making reference, either in debate or through motions and questions, to matters before the courts. It is a convention because there is no explicit written proscription preventing Parliament from considering a matter that is sub judice. It is a voluntary restraint which protects an accused in a court action or judicial inquiry against any public discussion on the issue.
The application of the sub judice convention in some situations is now well established; in others, it often depends on the discretion and judgement of the Speaker. In general, however, four guidelines serve to direct the application of this convention. First, the procedural authorities (Erskine May, Bourinot and Beauchesne) agree that the sub judice convention does not apply to bills because that would infringe upon the fundamental right of Parliament to legislate. Second, the sub judice convention does apply in matters related to criminal cases on which a judgement has not yet been rendered. In addition, if an appeal is made, the matter is immediately regarded as sub judice again. Third, the Chair has been cautious in allowing references to matters in civil cases prior to judgement. Where the court was one of record (i.e., a court that can levy a fine or impose a prison sentence), the Chair has tended to rule in support of the sub judice convention, but only after the matter had reached the trial stage. Finally, the sub judice convention is not invoked with reference to matters before royal commissions or other agencies that are not courts of record. Nonetheless, Members normally refrain from commenting on proceedings, evidence or findings before a final report by the commission or agency has been made.
In its First Report (tabled on April 29, 1977, and not concurred in), the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members made the following recommendations concerning the Speaker's application of the sub judice convention: "Your Committee is of the opinion that precise regulations concerning the application of the sub judice convention cannot be evolved and that it would be unwise to attempt to do so. Your Committee recommends that the Speaker should remain the final arbiter in the matter, that he [or she] should retain the authority to prevent discussion of matters in the House on the ground of sub judice, but that he [or she] should only exercise this discretion in exceptional cases where it is clear to him [or her] that to do otherwise could be harmful to specific individuals."
12.(d) Points of Order
Points of order are raised to call attention to any departure from the Standing Orders or customary procedures in debate or in the conduct of legislative business; a Member may raise them at virtually any time, whether he or she has previously spoken or not.
A Member has the right and responsibility to draw the Speaker's immediate attention to any instance of what he or she believes is a breach of order. The Member may interrupt and explain the point concisely to the Speaker as soon as an irregularity occurs in the proceedings; that is, the Speaker's attention must be directed to a breach of order the moment it occurs, before business has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place. A Member raising a point of order should state which Standing Order (or practice tantamount to a rule) he or she feels is being breached. If the Member does not, the Speaker may so request. Generally, a point of order may be raised at any time, but not so as to interrupt when the Speaker is addressing the House. Even those provisions in Standing Orders stating that certain actions must be taken "forthwith" or "forthwith without debate" do not bar a Member from raising a point of order when a serious irregularity occurs.
The Speaker decides questions of order only when they actually arise, not in anticipation. Hypothetical questions on procedure cannot be addressed to the Speaker from the floor of the House. Furthermore, the Speaker need not wait for the interruption of a Member, but is bound to call attention immediately to an irregularity in debate or procedure and to rule on each point of order. No debate is permitted on such a decision, nor can the decision be appealed to the House.
Where points of order are concerned, changes to the Standing Orders in 1986 incorporated practices which had developed over several years since the tenure of Speaker Jerome. These changes established certain times at which points of order may be raised, following certain practices mentioned in Beauchesne.
Points of order may still be raised at any time during debate, although not during "Statements by Members" or Question Period. They may be raised only at the end of these respective periods or otherwise, immediately after Routine Proceedings. Points of order arising from Routine Proceedings itself, as well as points of order following the Adjournment Debate from the preceding day should be taken up immediately after Routine Proceedings. Despite these restrictions, however, the Chair has discretion at any time to rule on questions involving unparliamentary language.
A Member cannot rise on a point of order to move a motion. If, however, the point of order is founded upon Standing Order 62: "That the Member be now heard", the Speaker will hear the Member, and if the point is well-founded, the Speaker could thereupon recognize the Member to move the motion. Members may not ask the Speaker to rule on a constitutional question or to decide a question of law; nor may they rise on a point of order to defer or impede the progress of their own motions, nor raise points of order against themselves; nor raise a second point of order when one is already before the House.
12.(e) Emergency Debate
A motion to adjourn the House is not debatable. However, the Standing Orders allow debate consequent upon such a motion in a number of specific cases. The most usual is the daily adjournment proceedings, discussed in Chapter 9. A second type of adjournment debate is possible if the subject of the debate is "a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration". Thus, a Member who wishes the House to debate an urgent matter initiates the process by requesting leave to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a stated matter of urgency and importance. The Speaker has the authority to decide whether or not the subject-matter should be brought immediately before the House. (In this context, urgency pertains to the debate, not to the matter.) Should the Speaker accept the application, the actual debate is deferred usually until 8:00 that same evening; on Fridays it is taken up forthwith.
This entire procedure is governed at each stage by a number of specific rules and conditions. Initially, a Member must give the Speaker written notice of the proposed motion at least one hour prior to raising it in the House. An application for an emergency debate can be made only after the ordinary daily routine of business.
The Member rises and, without argument, asks leave to move a motion to adjourn the House to discuss the emergency matter. The Standing Orders provide the criteria for the Speaker to determine whether the subject-matter is such that the adjournment motion should be proposed to the House. First, the Speaker must consider the extent to which the matter concerns the Government's administrative responsibilities or falls within the scope of ministerial action; the Speaker must also consider if and when the matter might be brought before the House by other means, that is, consideration is given to the urgency of a special debate. The Standing Orders also stipulate that the matter must be a genuine emergency; that only one such motion can be made in a sitting; that the motion can involve only one subject; and that it cannot revive a discussion already held under the provisions for an emergency debate. Speakers' decisions have further established that the subject-matter should not be of exclusively local or regional interest, should not relate only to a specific group or industry and should not involve the administration of a government department; ongoing problems have also been rejected as unsuitable. Procedural authorities make clear that matters arising out of debates in the same session, terms of a bill before the Senate, points of privilege or order, or other matters debatable only upon a substantive motion cannot be submitted to the House for consideration as matter for emergency debate. The established rules of debate, such as the rules of sub judice and anticipation, apply as well to emergency debates. In deciding whether or not to allow this motion, the Speaker may take into account the general wish of the House to debate the matter. Finally, the Speaker may defer a decision until later in the sitting; in accepting or rejecting the proposal, the Speaker is not bound to state any reasons.
Emergency debates are now held over until 8:00 p.m. (but are taken up immediately on Fridays) although the Speaker, often after consultation with the House Leaders, may decide to defer debate until a specific time on the following sitting day.
During an emergency debate, each Member may speak for a maximum of 20 minutes. The emergency debate is not interrupted by Private Members' Business or by the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. Should the debate be concluded before the adjournment hour, the motion to adjourn shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. Otherwise at 12:00 o'clock midnight (4:00 p.m. on Fridays) or when in the Speaker's opinion debate has concluded before those hours, the Speaker shall declare the motion carried and adjourn the House to the next sitting day.
