Speaker’s Rulings — Points of Order—Process and Purpose

Order! [Interruption] Order! Pursuant to agreement this morning by leave, the House has now resumed. Before we move on to oral questions, I want to make a ruling with regard to points of order.

A point of order is a means of raising with the Chair a matter related to the order of the House. It may only be used to call attention to a breach of the rules of the House—Speaker’s ruling 21/5—or to draw attention to the fact that a member intends to exercise a right given by the Standing Orders—Speaker’s ruling 21/4. It is not a means to clarify matters, to seek guidance, to ask questions, or to dispute a ruling given by a presiding officer—Speakers’ rulings 20/7 and 21/1.

Once a point of order has been decided, comment on it is not allowed—Speaker’s ruling 23/4, reinforced by Speakers Wall and Carter, who have ruled previously that a decision by the Chair is final, and any attempt to subvert it or to bring it into question is out of order. To continue to do so is highly disorderly—Speakers’ ruling 23/5. The only way to challenge a ruling in the committee of the whole House is to move to recall the Speaker—Speakers’ ruling 76/3. I would note that in committee, the Chairperson is the sole judge of questions of relevancy, of scope, or of repetition. I will not reverse or interfere with a Chairperson’s ruling on any of these matters in Speakers’ ruling 77/1, and that is in keeping with the practice of Speakers going back 110 years in this Parliament. So I want to reinforce: matters of judgment are matters for the Chair at the time.

If a member wishes to seek clarification, if they do not understand a ruling, they should make an appointment with the presiding officer outside the House to discuss it.