Rules of Debate
Introduction
One of the fundamental principles of parliamentary procedure is that debate and other proceedings in the House of Commons be conducted in terms of a free and civil discourse. Accordingly, the House has adopted rules of order and decorum governing the conduct of Members towards each other and towards the institution as a whole. Members are expected to show respect for one another and for viewpoints differing from their own; offensive or rude behaviour or language is not tolerated; and opinions are to be expressed with civility.
The Speaker is charged with maintaining order in the Chamber by ensuring that the House’s rules and practices are respected. These rules govern proper attire, the quoting and tabling of documents in debate, the application of the sub judice convention to debates and questioning in the House, and the civility of remarks directed towards both Houses, Members and Senators, representatives of the Crown, judges and courts. In addition, it is the duty of the Speaker to safeguard the orderly conduct of debate by curbing disorder when it arises either on the floor of the Chamber or in the galleries, and by ruling on points of order raised by Members. The Speaker’s disciplinary powers are intended to ensure that debate remains focussed and that order and decorum are maintained.
Another fundamental principle of parliamentary procedure is that debate in the House of Commons must lead to a decision within a reasonable period of time. Although what seems reasonable to one party may arguably appear unfair to another, few parliamentarians contest the idea that, at some point, debate must end. While much House business is concluded without recourse to special procedures intended to limit or end debate, certain rules exist to curtail debate in cases where it is felt a decision would otherwise not be taken within a reasonable time frame or not taken at all. When asked to determine the acceptability of a motion to limit debate, the Speaker does not judge the importance of the issue in question or whether a reasonable time has been allowed for debate, but strictly addresses the acceptability of the procedure followed.
During his tenure, Mr. Speaker Milliken made a number of decisions with respect to debate in the House. Indeed, this chapter includes 26 rulings that touch on various aspects of debate. Mr. Speaker Milliken made a number of decisions regarding the use of unparliamentary language. On February 3, 2009, for example, he ruled on a point of order raised for a second time—it was first raised in the previous session, but the Speaker could not issue his decision to the House because that session had been prorogued—pertaining to excerpts from e-mails from members of the public quoted in the House which allegedly contained unparliamentary language.
Mr. Speaker Milliken also dealt with points of order raised on the content of Statements by Members. For example, on June 14, 2005, the Speaker ruled on whether a Member had made disrespectful comments with respect to a Senator and a Minister during Question Period. In addition, on February 1, 2007, Mr. Speaker Milliken ruled on a point of order raised by a Member after a Minister had implied during Question Period that the Member had misled the House.
On February 23, 2007, Mr. Speaker Milliken ruled on the admissibility of a motion introduced by the Government House Leader to suspend certain Standing Orders in order to accelerate consideration of a bill that had not yet been introduced in the House, without seeking or obtaining unanimous consent. Then on February 15, 2008, he ruled on the admissibility of a motion, placed on the Notice Paper in the name of the Government House Leader, after a Member raised a point of order arguing that it should not be admissible because it contained an argumentative preamble, was too long and contained conditions beyond the control of the House.
Mr. Speaker Milliken also ruled on measures intended to limit debate. On December 3, 2009, he delivered a decision on the admissibility of a time allocation motion for a bill not yet introduced in the House. Also in this chapter is a decision made by Deputy Speaker Bob Kilger on March 1, 2001, on a question of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition in the House with regard to the Government’s use of time allocation to limit debate on bills.
The decisions collected in this chapter reflect Mr. Speaker Milliken’s respect for the traditions and practices of the House of Commons related to the rules of debate. They are grouped into three main themes: the process of debate; order and decorum; and the curtailment of debate. Mr. Speaker Milliken was often required to exercise his authority in a tense environment, a by-product of the minority governments that marked his tenure, but his decisions show his commitment to maintaining order and decorum in the House and to enforcing the rules of debate while respecting the rights and privileges of Members.