Rules of Debate - Order and Decorum / Points of Order

December 19, 1984

Debates pp. 1367-8

Background

On December 18, 1984, the House resumed consideration of Bill C-12 (Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act). It was agreed by unanimous consent to adopt a motion substituting Bill C-17, an amended version of Bill C-12. Bill C-17 was then deemed to have been introduced, read a first time, and to have reached the same stage in debate as its predecessor. The following day the House resumed consideration of Bill C-17 at second reading. Mr. Baker (Gander—Twillingate), who had been absent on the previous day, raised a point of order in which he contended that the House could not waive the introduction and first reading of a bill as it had done on Bill C-17. The Speaker replied that it was too late to reverse a decision adopted in the House by unanimous consent. Mr. Baker said that he understood the rules to require that a Member raise a point of order when a procedural irregularity is brought to the Member's attention, and since he was absent on the previous day, this was his first opportunity to do so. The Speaker ruled immediately.

Issue

Can a point of order be raised the next day about a proceeding that occurred in the Member's absence?

Decision

No. A point of order against a procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The House, which is master of its procedure, made a decision on the matter. Had the Member been present during this proceeding, he could have denied unanimous consent to consider the motion. Clearly, the Member cannot raise a point of order today about what happened yesterday.