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

[301]: Standing Order 10. See, for example, Debates, February 10, 1998, pp. 3647-8; February 12, 1998, pp. 3765-6; May 27, 1998, pp. 7276-7, 7283.
[302]: Standing Order 10. While it has never been the practice to debate Speakers’ rulings on matters of order, it was possible until 1965 for any Member who disagreed with a Speaker’s decision to appeal it immediately to the House. For a detailed discussion of this matter, see Chapter 7, “The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House”.
[303]: See, for example, Debates, May 7, 1998, pp. 6674-6.
[304]: See, for example, Debates, October 3, 1995, pp. 15186.
[305]: Standing Order 17.
[306]: Standing Order 16(2). The Speaker will reprimand Members who have distracted the Member speaking by passing between him or her and the Chair. See Debates, October 16, 1970, p. 219; January 25, 1984, p. 738; April 30, 1985, pp. 4269, 4273; August 26, 1987, p. 8431; September 27, 1991, p. 2825.
[307]: Standing Order 16(2).
[308]: Standing Order 16(3). See, for example, Debates,October 29, 1997, p. 1309.
[309]: See, for example, Debates, February 24, 1993, p. 16404.
[310]: Standing Order 16(4).
[311]: See, for example, Debates, October 5, 1990, p. 13892; September 30, 1997, p. 320.
[312]: See, for example, Debates, April 27, 1993, p. 18495; March 23, 1999, p. 13311.
[313]: In the past, it was the custom for Members to pound their desks to signify approval, but after the House proceedings began to be televised in 1977 and the public voiced its displeasure with this custom, Members took to applauding instead.
[314]: On occasion, the Speaker has asked Members not to heckle (see, for example, Debates, September 16, 1991, p. 2190; March 7, 1994, p. 1887; April 5, 1995, p. 11552), while in other instances, the Speaker has indicated that heckling is part of debate (see, for example, Debates, April 1, 1992, p. 9193).
[315]: See Debates, February 19, 1998, p. 4156, when Speaker Parent admonished Members that their applause for their colleagues prevented others from hearing Members’ statements. See also Debates, December 21, 1988, pp. 554-5.
[316]: Debates, October 10, 1990, pp. 14010-1; September 30, 1994, p. 6373. On February 26, 1998, Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski–Mitis) was prevented from speaking by the singing of the national anthem (Debates, p. 4503). The House Leader of the Bloc québécois (Michel Gauthier) subsequently raised a point of order about the disorder (Debates, pp. 4509-12). Speaker Parent ruled on March 16, 1998 (Debates, pp. 4902-3), that the event had been out of order: “Our law guarantees the right of all duly elected members to speak: our practice guarantees their right to be heard. It is the duty of the Speaker to guarantee that those rights are respected by guaranteeing that the House’s rules and practices are respected.”
[317]: See, for example, Debates, April 1, 1992, p. 9193; March 20, 1996, p. 986.
[318]: See, for example, Debates, February 9, 1994, p. 1147; June 10, 1994, p. 5169; November 28, 1994, pp. 8384-5; February 9, 1995, p. 9446.
[319]: Standing Order 16(1). See, for example, Debates, June 22, 1988, pp. 16731-2; April 9, 1990, p. 10390; November 27, 1991, p. 5458; October 28, 1997, p. 1258; June 9, 1998, p. 7884. For additional information on the taking of divisions, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
[320]: See, for example, Journals, April 18, 1956, p. 416; Debates, February 16, 1976, p. 10986. Members are not required to be at their allocated desks during a division taken in a Committee of the Whole.
[321]: See, for example, Debates, February 14, 1983, pp. 22822-3; June 9, 1986, p. 14140. In doubtful cases, the Member is asked if he or she has heard the question, and the Chair accepts the word of the Member (see, for example, Debates, April 28, 1988, pp. 14942-3; June 9, 1998, p. 7890).
[322]: For additional information, see Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[323]: Debates, June 22, 1995, p. 14466. Just prior to the taking of the vote on a government bill, Speaker Parent had asked Members to refrain from using props— in this instance, buttons decrying Members’ pension benefits (Debates, p. 14465).
[324]: Debates, March 1, 1999, pp. 12212-3.
[325]: Standing Order 10.
[326]: Standing Order 11(2). See section above, “Repetition and Relevance in Debate”.
[327]: See, for example, Debates, May 9, 1883, p. 1086.
[328]: See, for example, Debates, April 25, 1892, col. 1636.
[329]: See, for example, Debates, May 13, 1882, p. 1520.
[330]: See, for example, Debates, April 27, 1885, p. 1405.
[331]: See, for example, Debates, April 17, 1878, pp. 2063-4.
[332]: It was often suggested, not without some truth, that the root of the problem of order and decorum lay in the basement of the Parliament Building, just below the Chamber, where a much-frequented public saloon plied “intoxicating liquors” to Members seeking "refreshment" during the lengthy evening debates. In 1874, the House resolved to instruct the Speaker to close down the bar, but the decision was not enforced. This was attempted once more in 1881 but again to no effect. For a discussion on the closing of the bar, see Debates, February 28, 1881, pp. 1166-71. The saloon was finally closed when Wilfrid Laurier became Prime Minister (Debates, September 15, 1896, col. 1208). See also Norman Ward, “The Formative Years of the House of Commons, 1867-91”, The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Vol. 18, No. 4, November 1952, pp. 432-4.
[333]: See, for example, Debates, March 15, 1913, cols. 6015-22.
[334]: See, for example, Debates, September 12, 1917, pp. 5768-71.
[335]: See, for example, Debates, May 24, 1956, pp. 4292-313.
[336]: Perhaps the worst scene in modern times occurred in 1980 when closure was moved on a motion to establish a committee to study a constitutional resolution. Several Members, angered by the closure motion, stormed the Chair, demanding to be heard. The resulting disorder on the floor of the House led to the entrance, behind the curtains, of members of the protective staff on the orders of the Sergeant-at-Arms. See Debates, October 23, 1980, pp. 4049-51; October 24, 1980, pp. 4065, 4068; November 6, 1980, p. 4499; November 7, 1980, pp. 4553-4. Another particularly serious incident occurred on October 16, 1985, when a Member, after asking a question about the British Columbia fishing industry, placed a dead salmon on the Prime Minister’s desk (Debates, p. 7678).
[337]: See, in particular, Speaker Fraser’s reprimand of Ian Waddell (Port Moody–Coquitlam) who was called to the Bar of the House for physically attempting to prevent the Mace from leaving the Chamber (Debates, October 31, 1991, pp. 4271-8, 4279-85, 4309-10), and Speaker Parent’s ruling of March 16, 1998, in regard to the disorder which broke out in the Chamber on February 26, 1998, when a Member of the Bloc québécois (Suzanne Tremblay) attempted to speak (Debates, March 16, 1998, pp. 4902-3).
[338]: See, for example, Debates, September 25, 1989, p. 3818; September 26, 1996, p. 4715; February 6, 1997, p. 7790; September 24, 1998, p. 8354.
[339]: See, for example, Debates, February 14, 1992, pp. 7039-40; February 15, 1993, pp. 15918-9; February 4, 1997, pp. 7645-6.
[340]: See, for example, Debates, September 26, 1991, p. 2773; March 24, 1994, p. 2738; November 6, 1995, p. 16238; May 8, 1996, p. 2482.
[341]: See, for example, Debates, October 30, 1987, pp. 10583-4; November 18, 1987, pp. 10927-8; January 17, 1991, pp. 17294-5, 17304-5.
[342]: Standing Order 11(1)(a).
[343]: For an overview of the British practice, see May, 6^th ed., p. 323; May, 22^nd ed., pp. 394-5, 397-9. See also Hatsell, Vol. II, pp. 230-8, in particular pp. 237-8.
[344]: Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Canada, September 9, 1852, pp. 125-6; May 9, 1861, p. 270.
[345]: Debates, March 15, 1913, col. 6019.
[346]: Debates, March 15, 1913, cols. 6016-22.
[347]: See, for example, Debates, March 5, 1877, pp. 482-5; May 9, 1890, cols. 4717-8; September 28, 1903, col. 12562; January 18, 1910, col. 2084. In one case, the Speaker did take action, although not by naming a Member: “In the session of 1875 Mr. Domville, member for King’s, N.B., made some remarks which appeared to be most insulting to the House as a body. The Speaker called him to order but he persisted in repeating the offensive expressions and the Speaker immediately ordered the Sergeant-at-Arms to take him into custody. Mr. Domville apologized, for in his excitement he did not seem to know what he had been saying. On a subsequent day, whilst the doors were closed, Mr. Speaker stated frankly that he believed he had exceeded his power in ordering the hon. member to be taken into custody.” (Handwritten endnote in Bourinot’s personal copy of May, 6^th ed., p. 330d.)
[348]: Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 326-7.
[349]: Standing Order 11(2).
[350]: An interpretation of both these points was advanced in the same year by the Clerk of the House, Arthur Beauchesne, who wrote that a Member’s persistent use of unparliamentary language (in addition to repetition or irrelevance) was sufficient reason for the Speaker to name that Member (Beauchesne, 2^nd ed., p. 89). As to the procedure to be followed after naming, Beauchesne cited a British Standing Order: “ … the Speaker shall forthwith put the question, on a motion being made… ‘That such member be suspended from the service of the house’” (Beauchesne, 2^nd ed., p. 92).