Regardless of how dramatically our opinions may diverge or how passionately we hold to convictions that our
political opponents do not share, civility must be respected in the House of Commons. This means that each
member is entitled to speak and each member can expect a fair hearing, whether or not we agree with what they
say or what they stand for.
Speaker Gilbert Parent
(Debates, March 16, 1998, p. 4902)
O
ne of the basic principles of parliamentary procedure is that proceedings in the House of Commons are conducted
in terms of a free and civil discourse. In order that debate on matters of public policy be held in a civil
manner, the House has adopted rules of order and decorum for the conduct of Members towards each other and
towards the institution as a whole. Members are to show respect for one another and for different viewpoints;
offensive or rude behaviour or language is not tolerated. Emotions are to be expressed in words rather than acted
out; opinions are to be expressed with civility and freely, without fear of punishment or reprisal. [1]
Freedom of speech is one of the most important privileges enjoyed by Members of Parliament. [2]
This freedom is circumscribed, however, by the necessity of maintaining order and decorum when debate is taking
place. Thus, the right to speak is tempered by the written rules of the House which are, in general, limitations
on what may be said, and when, by whom and for how long.
The Speaker is charged with maintaining order in the Chamber by ensuring that the House’s rules and practices
are respected. [3]
He or she ensures that the rules are followed respecting 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, the Speaker has the duty to maintain an orderly conduct of debate by repressing 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 ensure that the debate is focussed and permit the Chair to remove Members
who persist in behaving inappropriately. Nonetheless, while it is the Speaker who is charged with maintaining the
dignity and decorum of the House, Members themselves must take responsibility for their behaviour and conduct
their business in an appropriate fashion.
This chapter examines the practices and rules pertaining to debate in the Chamber and the powers of the Speaker to
enforce order and decorum when breaches occur.
Recognition to Speak
With few exceptions, a Member may speak to any motion that has been proposed to the House and which is open to
debate. [4]
In managing the debate on a motion, the Speaker is responsible for deciding the order in which Members are
recognized and for applying the rules of debate which deal with such matters as speaking once to a motion, the
right of reply and unwarranted interventions.
Usual Order of Speaking
There is no official order for the recognition of speakers laid down in the Standing Orders; the Chair relies on
the practice and precedents of the House when recognizing Members to speak. The Standing Orders simply authorize
the Speaker to recognize for debate the Member who seeks the floor by rising in his or her place. [5]
The Member who is “seen” first is given the right to speak. This is commonly referred to as
“catching the Speaker’s eye”. This expression has become an established phrase in parliamentary
terminology and dates back to early British procedure. [6]
Although the Whips of the various parties each provide the Chair with a list of Members wishing to speak, these
lists are used only as a guide. [7]
By tradition, some Members of the House such as Party Leaders, Ministers when appropriate, [8]
and often opposition critics or spokespersons are given some priority to speak. A limited number of Members,
including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, have special rights accorded to them in the Standing
Orders, but these rights relate only to the length of their speeches. [9]
While the Speaker has complete discretion in recognizing Members, [10]
the Chair may follow such informal arrangements as may be made [11]
or the Chair may be bound by an Order of the House setting down a specific speaking order. [12]
In the usual order of speaking, after a motion has been proposed to the House, the Speaker recognizes the mover of
the motion as the first to speak in debate. If the mover chooses not to speak, he or she is nonetheless deemed to
have spoken — by simply nodding, the Member is considered to have said “I move” and this is taken
as speech in the debate. [13]
The Member who seconds a motion is not required to speak to it at this point, but may choose to do so later in the
debate. [14]
The Speaker subsequently “sees” Members from opposite sides of the House in a reasonable rotation, bearing
in mind the membership of the various recognized parties in the House, [15]
the right of reply, [16]
and the nature of the proceedings. For example, during the first round of debate on Government Orders, a representative
from the government and from each of the recognized opposition parties are recognized by the Speaker if they rise to
seek the floor in debate. For subsequent rounds, the Speaker alternates between Members on the government and opposition
benches. The Speaker has given the floor to independent Members and Members of unrecognized parties only after Members
of recognized parties have participated in debate in proportion to their membership in the House. [17]
During Private Members’ Business, the Speaker exercises greater discretion in recognizing Members, ensuring that
all parties and groups in the House are heard and that all sides of the issue under debate are expressed. On Supply days,
the Chair may recognize Members from the party sponsoring the opposition motion more frequently. [18]
During the 10-minute period for questions and comments following most speeches, [19]
Members may direct questions to the Member who has just completed his or her speech, or may make brief comments on that
speech. When recognizing Members, the Chair gives preference to Members of parties other than that of the original speaker,
but not to the exclusion of Members from the speaker’s party. [20]
If the questions and comments period is interrupted by another proceeding, when debate resumes on the motion, the
questions and comments period will only continue if the Member who made the initial speech is present. [21]
Since there is no precise time set aside for the length of each individual question or comment, the Chair will sometimes
determine how many Members are interested in participating in the questions and comments period and then apportion the
time for each intervention accordingly. Members recognized during the questions and comments period are not allowed to
move dilatory motions, [22]
to propose amendments, [23]
or to move motions to extend the hours of sitting. [24]
Motion That a Member Be Now Heard
The Speaker’s decision as to who has the right to speak during debate may be altered by the House on a motion that
another Member “be now heard”. A decision on this motion settles the order of debate immediately.
When two Members rise simultaneously to “catch the Speaker’s eye”, the Speaker will recognize one of
them to speak. By rising on a point of order, another Member may move that the Member who had not been recognized be
given the floor. [25]
The moving of the motion “that a Member be now heard” is an exception to the rule that a motion cannot be
moved on a point of order. The motion may not be moved if the Member first recognized by the Speaker has already begun
to speak. [26]
If the motion is ruled in order by the Speaker, the question on the motion is put forthwith without debate. A recorded
division may take place. If carried, the Member named in the motion may speak. [27]
If the motion is defeated, the Member originally recognized retains the right to speak. [28]
A second motion “that a Member be now heard” may only be moved after the Member recognized has completed
his or her speech. [29]
Thus, it is impossible to move a succession of these motions in order to prevent one particular Member from speaking.
In addition, the motion cannot be moved:
- if no debatable motion is before the House; [30]
- if no one has yet been given the floor; [31]
- if the Member named in the motion did not originally rise to be recognized; [32]
- to give the floor to a Member whose speech would close the debate; [33]
- during the period for questions and comments following a speech; [34] and
- if the House has adopted an order specifying the speaking order to be followed during debate. [35]
Recognition to Speak When Order Next Called
A Member whose speech is interrupted either pursuant to a Standing or Special Order, [36]
or by the adoption of a motion to adjourn the debate, may continue speaking to the full amount of his or her allotted
time when debate on the motion resumes. Likewise, should the proceedings be suspended, the Member who had the floor
at the time of the suspension retains the right to speak when the proceedings resume. [37]
Should this Member not be present in the Chamber when the House resumes debate, the Member is considered to have lost
the floor and to have finished speaking. [38]
This principle also applies to the questions and comments period: if the Member who made the speech is not present
upon resumption of debate, the questions and comments period does not continue and another Member is recognized on debate. [39]
Retention of Right to Speak After a Royal Assent Ceremony
If the Usher of the Black Rod arrives at the door of the House with a message from the Governor General summoning the
House to the Senate for a Royal Assent ceremony, the business of the House is interrupted. [40]
No Member will be recognized to speak on a point of order or a question of privilege. [41]
The business before the House continues when the House returns from the Senate and the sitting resumes; the Member whose
speech was interrupted upon the arrival of the Usher of the Black Rod is recognized to continue his or her speech. [42]
Recognition to Speak Before and After Divisions
Once the Speaker has put a question to the House, no further debate is permitted. No points of order or questions of
privilege are allowed. [43]
Indeed, Members must remain seated until the result of the vote is announced. After the result of a recorded division
has been announced, Members have, however, risen on points of order to explain why they abstained from voting; [44]
or how they would have voted if they had been present in the Chamber to hear the question put; [45]
or how they wish to have their votes recorded for subsequent divisions for which the results are to be applied. [46]
On occasion, Members have risen on a point of order after a recorded division to seek unanimous consent to change their
votes. [47]
However, a Member should not raise a point of order to reflect on how another Member voted. [48]
Speaking once to a Motion
In order to expedite the transaction of House business, the Standing Orders provide that no Member may speak twice during
debate on any motion. [49]
If a Member inadvertently rises to speak a second time, the Speaker will interrupt the Member and recognize another to speak. [50]
A motion, an amendment and a sub-amendment are three separate questions and are treated as such for the purposes of the
rule of speaking only once to a question. [51]
However, an amendment is not a separate question until the Speaker proposes it to the House. This means that the Member
who moves an amendment is deemed to have spoken not only to the amendment, but also to the main motion. [52]
Similarly, the Member who moves a sub-amendment is deemed to have spoken also to the amendment and cannot do so again,
although this does not affect the Member’s right to speak to the main motion. [53]
After an amendment (or sub-amendment) has been moved, seconded and proposed to the House, any Member rising to speak
addresses the amendment (or sub-amendment). When an amendment (or sub-amendment) has been disposed of, either in the
affirmative or in the negative, any Member who has not yet spoken to the main motion (or amendment) may speak to it. An
amended main motion is not considered a new question; only those Members who have not yet spoken to the main motion may
speak to the amended motion. [54]
Any Member who rises to move a debatable motion must indicate the name of a second Member who formally supports the motion.
A government order must be moved by a Minister, but it may be seconded by any Member of the House. [55]
If the mover of the motion chooses not to speak immediately after the motion has been proposed to the House, he or she
loses the right to speak to the motion except in reply. [56]
The seconder may be recognized to speak to the motion later in the debate. [57]
If a Member moves a motion during his or her speech (e.g., an amendment or a motion to adjourn debate), the act of moving
the motion will terminate the Member’s speech. [58]
A Member who has already spoken to a question may not rise again to propose or second an amendment or move a motion to
adjourn the debate or the House, although the Member may speak to an amendment if it has been moved by another Member. [59]
If the House should negative a motion to adjourn the debate, the mover of the motion will be deemed to have exhausted his
or her right of speaking to the main question. [60]
However, if the motion is adopted, the mover is allowed to speak first the next time the Order is called. If the Member
does not then rise, he or she forfeits the opportunity to speak. [61]
The House will occasionally grant a Member unanimous consent to speak a second time to a motion. [62]
The Standing Orders also provide for exceptions to the rule of only speaking once to a question. First, although rarely
invoked since the implementation in 1982 of the 10-minute questions and comments period, [63]
a Member may be allowed to speak a second time in order to explain a material part of his or her speech which may have
been misquoted or misunderstood. [64]
In doing so, the Member must rise on a point of order and must limit the intervention to an explanation of the alleged
misquotation or misunderstanding and cannot introduce any new material. [65]
Second, the Standing Orders also allow the movers of certain kinds of motions a right to speak a second time when no other
Members wish to speak. [66]
This is known as the “right of reply”.
The Right of Reply
Any Member who has moved a substantive motion has the right to speak a second time to close the debate. [67]
By custom, this right has also been extended to the Member who moved a motion for second reading of a bill, but it does
not pertain to movers of amendments, the previous question, an instruction to a committee, or third reading of a bill. [68]
The right of reply gives the mover of a substantive motion an opportunity to rebut the criticisms and arguments used against
his or her motion, and its effect is to close the debate. So that no Member wishing to participate in a debate is prevented
from doing so by a sudden or unannounced exercise of the right of reply, the Speaker must inform the House that the reply
of the mover of the original motion closes the debate. [69]
If a Member moves a motion on behalf of another Member, a later speech by either will close the debate. [70]
However, during the debate on the second reading motion of a government bill, a parliamentary secretary may close the debate
on behalf of the Minister who moved the motion only with the unanimous consent of the House. [71]
Although Ministers may exercise the right of reply, [72]
it is typically only private Members who now make use of the right of reply. Indeed, this right is entrenched in two additional
Standing Orders respecting Private Members’ Business. The mover of a non-votable item of Private Members’ Business
is entitled to speak in reply for not more than five minutes at the conclusion of debate. [73]
During Private Members’ Business, when debate on a motion for the production of papers under “Notices of Motions
(Paper)” has taken place for a total of one hour and 30 minutes, a Minister may speak for not more than five minutes,
whether or not he or she has previously spoken, and the mover may close the debate by speaking for not more than five minutes. [74]
Interventions
When a Member is addressing the House, no other Member may interrupt except to raise a question of privilege which has arisen
suddenly or to raise a point of order. [75]
Prior to 1982 and the advent of the period for questions and comments following most speeches, [76]
if a Member wanted to ask a question during debate, he or she first had to obtain the consent of the Member who was speaking. [77]
The Member allowing the interruption was under no obligation to reply, and was often reluctant to do so, as the time taken up
in this way was subtracted from his or her speaking time.
Manner of Speaking
Place of Speaking
Any Member who wishes to participate in the proceedings must stand and be in his or her designated place to be
recognized and to speak. [78]
Exceptions to these two conditions have occurred but only rarely and in unusual circumstances, for example, when
a Member has been unable to rise as a result of an injury or illness. [79]
When the Chair occupant rises, a Member must sit down. [80]
Members have been discouraged from sitting on chair arms or on desks with their backs to the House. When the
House sits as a Committee of the Whole, a Member may rise and speak from any seat.
Remarks Addressed to the Chair
Any Member participating in debate must address the Chair, not the House, a particular Minister or Member, the
galleries, or the television audience. Since one of the basic principles of procedure in the House is that the
proceedings be conducted in terms of a free and civil discourse, [81]
Members are less apt to engage in direct heated exchanges and personal attacks when their comments are directed
to the Chair rather than to another Member. If a Member directs remarks towards another Member and not the Speaker,
he or she will be called to order and may be asked to rephrase the remarks. [82]
In a Committee of the Whole, Members must direct their comments to the Chairman. [83
Proper Attire
While there is no Standing Order setting down a dress code for Members participating in debate, [84]
Speakers have ruled that to be recognized to speak in debate, on points of order or during Question Period,
tradition and practice require all Members, male or female, to dress in contemporary business attire. [85]
The contemporary practice and unwritten rule require, therefore, that male Members wear a jacket, shirt and tie
as standard dress. Clerical collars have been allowed, although ascots and turtlenecks have been ruled inappropriate
for male Members participating in debate. [86]
The Chair has even stated that wearing a kilt is permissible on certain occasions (for example, Robert Burns
Day). [87]
Members of the House who are in the armed forces have been permitted to wear their uniforms in the House. [88]
In certain circumstances, usually for medical reasons, the Chair has allowed a relaxation of the dress standards
allowing, for example, a male Member whose arm was in a cast to wear a sweater in the House instead of a jacket. [89]
Language of Debate
The Constitution Act, 1867 guarantees that a Member may address the House in either English or French. [90]
Given the bilingual nature of the House and the existence of simultaneous interpretation, [91]
Members rarely have difficulty expressing their views and having those views understood in the Chamber. In addition,
all parliamentary publications, such as the Journals, the Debates, and the Order Paper and Notice
Paper, are printed in both official languages.
Other languages are occasionally used in debate, but not at great length[92]
and a ember will sometimes provide the Debates editor with a translation of his or her remarks. [93]
As the Speaker has noted, however, serious difficulties could arise in maintaining order in debate (and by extension
accurate records of the House) if languages other than English or French were used to any great extent. [94]
A Member has also used sign language to make a statement and to ask a question during Question Period. [95]
Reading Speeches
While not formally prohibited by a Standing Order, practice holds that when addressing the House, Members should not
read from a written, prepared speech. [96]
A Member may, however, use notes when delivering a speech. The purpose of this rule, which derived from British practice,
is to maintain the cut and thrust of debate, which depends upon successive speakers addressing to some extent in their
speeches the arguments put forward by previous speakers. [97]
Although the tradition of not reading speeches existed at Confederation, in 1886 the House adopted the following
resolution:
… the growing practice in the Canadian House of Commons of delivering speeches of great length, having the character
of carefully and elaborately prepared written essays, and indulging in voluminous and often irrelevant extracts, [which]
is destructive of legitimate and pertinent debate upon public questions, is a waste of valuable time, unreasonably
lengthens the Sessions of Parliament, threatens by increased bulk and cost to lead to the abolition of the official report
of the Debates, encourages a discursive and diffuse, rather than an incisive and concise style of public speaking, is a
marked contrast to the practice in regard to debate that prevails in the British House of Commons, and tends to repel
the public from a careful and intelligent consideration of the proceedings of Parliament.[98]
Despite this resolution, over the years several Speakers expressed concern that Members were not delivering speeches
extemporaneously. Attempts to enforce the rule failed and resulted in a number of Speaker’s statements and rulings
on this matter. [99]
In 1956, Speaker Beaudoin received the consent of the House to have printed in the Journals a statement on the
rule regarding the reading of speeches. In the statement, he examined the rule as established by the authorities on
procedure (i.e., May, Bourinot, and Beauchesne and various Speakers) and the
practice of the House under the rule. He then summarized the practice which is still being followed today:
A Member addressing the House may refer to notes. The Prime Minister, the cabinet ministers, the Leader of the Opposition,
the leaders of other parties or Members speaking on their behalf, may read important policy speeches. New Members may
read their [maiden] speeches. The Members speaking in a language other than their mother tongue, the Members speaking in
debates involving matters of a technical nature, or in debates on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and
on the Budget may use full notes or, if they wish, read their speeches.[100]
Other than in the most blatant cases, the Chair has shown a disinclination to insist that Members refrain from reading
from a written speech, preferring to wait until attention is drawn to a transgression on a point of order, at which time
the Chair typically rules that it is permissible for a Member to refer to notes. [101]
Use of Lectern
Members are not permitted to use a lectern when delivering a speech in the Chamber, with the sole exception of the
Minister of Finance, who may use one during the presentation of the Budget. Chair occupants have, however, indicated
that it is acceptable for Members to lay their notes on books. [102]
Citation of Documents
There is no Standing Order which governs the citation of documents; the House is guided mainly by custom and precedents.
Generally, the reading of articles from newspapers, books or other documents by a Member during debate has become an
accepted practice and is not ruled out of order provided that such quotations do not reflect on past proceedings in the
House, [103]
do not refer to or comment on or deny anything said by a Member, [104]
or use language which would be out of order if spoken by a Member. [105]
A speech should not consist of a single long quotation or a series of quotations joined together with a few original
sentences. [106]
Members may not quote from the “blues” (the unedited preliminary version of Hansard) nor may they
quote from correspondence when there is no way of ensuring the authenticity of the signature. [107]
They may quote from private correspondence as long as they identify the sender by name or take full responsibility for
its contents. [108]
Finally, Members may not quote from the proceedings of a committee before it has reported to the House. [109]
Tabling of Documents and Speeches
Any document quoted by a Minister in debate or in response to a question during Question Period must be tabled. [110]
Indeed, a Minister is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch (an official written message on government affairs)
or other state paper without being prepared to table it if it can be done without injury to the public interest. [111]
As Speaker Glen noted in a 1941 ruling, “an honourable member is not entitled to read from communications unless
prepared to place them on the Table of the House. The principle upon which this is based is that where information is
given to the House, the House itself is entitled to the same information as the honourable member who may quote the document.” [112]
A public document referred to but not cited by a Minister need not be tabled; only the document cited by a Minister is
tabled. [113]
If a Minister quotes a private letter in debate, the letter becomes a public document and must be tabled on request. [114]
However, a Minister is not obliged to table personal notes referred to during debate or Question Period. [115]
All documents tabled in the House by a Minister are required to be tabled in both official languages. [116]
There has been a long-standing practice in the House that private Members may not table documents, official or otherwise. [117]
Speaker Lamoureux submitted that while Ministers must table official documents cited in debate in support of an argument,
this rule has never been interpreted to apply to a document, official or otherwise, referred to by private Members. In
1974, when a Member attempted to seek unanimous consent to table a document, Speaker Lamoureux stated that there was
“no provision in the rules for a private Member to table or file documents in any way.” The Speaker concluded
by suggesting that Members “could presumably make them public in a number of other ways”. [118]
However, since the mid-1980s, Members have been allowed on occasion to table documents or material to which they may have
referred during their speeches or during Question Period with the unanimous consent of the House. [119]
These documents (often copies of correspondence or advertisements) have typically been tabled in only one language. [120]
Private Members sometimes place material for the information of all Members on the Table, although this is not considered
an official tabling. [121]
In order that the Debates be as accurate a record as possible of what has been spoken in the House, Members are
not permitted to table speeches for printing in Hansard. [122]
On rare occasions, a Member has received the consent of the House to have long lists, statistics or similar material printed
in the Debates as part of a speech. [123]
There have also been instances when the House has given its consent to have documents or exchanges of letters printed as a
formal appendix to the Debates for the information of the House. [124]
Displays, Exhibits, Props
Speakers have consistently ruled out of order displays or demonstrations of any kind used by Members to illustrate their
remarks or emphasize their positions. Similarly, props of any kind, used as a way of making a silent comment on issues, have
always been found unacceptable in the Chamber. Members may hold notes in their hands, but they will be interrupted and
reprimanded by the Speaker if they use papers, documents or other objects to illustrate their remarks. [125]
Exhibits have also been ruled inadmissible. [126]
During the debate on the flag in 1964, the Speaker had to remind Members on numerous occasions that the display of competing
flag designs was not permissible. [127]
Small Canadian flags and desk flags have been disallowed when they have been used to cause disorder in the House for the
purpose of interrupting a Member’s speech. [128]
While political buttons and lapel pins have not been considered exhibits as long as they do not cause disorder, [129]
the Speaker has interrupted a division to request that certain Members remove “props” from their lapels. [130]
Maiden Speech
A Member’s first speech in the House is referred to as his or her maiden speech. Traditionally, the House extends
certain concessions or courtesies to a Member delivering a maiden speech. On such occasions, the Speaker may recognize that
Member in preference to others rising at the same time; however, this privilege will not be granted unless claimed within
the Parliament to which the Member was first elected. [131]
The Member is permitted to read his or her speech [132]
and, by courtesy, is not interrupted. Additional time beyond that allotted by the rules is sometimes granted by the Chair
to permit a Member to complete his or her speech. [133]
Since consideration of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne is normally the first extensive debate in a new
session, many new Members take advantage of the occasion to make their first speeches. [134]
Rules Regarding the Contents of Speeches
References to Members
During debate, Members do not refer to one another by their names but rather by title, position or constituency
name in order to guard against all tendency to personalize debate. [135]
A Minister is referred to by the portfolio he or she holds. [136]
The two main party leaders are generally referred to as the Right Honourable Prime Minister and the Honourable
Leader of the Opposition, and other party leaders are identified with their parties. [137]
Former Prime Ministers sitting in the House are also referred to as Right Honourable, as are other Members with
this designation. Parliamentary Secretaries, House Leaders and Party Whips are typically designated by the posts
they hold.
The Speaker will not allow a Member to refer to another Member by name even if the Member is quoting from a
document such as a newspaper article. As the Chair noted, a Member “cannot do indirectly what cannot be
done directly.” [138]
It is unacceptable to allude to the presence or absence of a Member or Minister in the Chamber. [139]
The Speaker has traditionally discouraged Members from signalling the absence of another Member from the House
because “there are many places that Members have to be in order to carry out all of the obligations that
go with their office.” [140]
Remarks directed specifically at another Member which question that Member’s integrity, honesty or character
are not in order. [141]
A Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations, or accusations of impropriety directed towards
another Member. [142]
The Speaker has no authority to rule on statements made outside the House by one Member against another. [143]
Reflections on the House and the Senate
Disrespectful reflections on Parliament as a whole, or on the House and the Senate as component parts of Parliament
are not permitted. [144]
Members of the House and the Senate are also protected by this rule. In debate, the Senate is generally referred to
as “the other place” and Senators as “members of the other place”. [145]
References to Senate debates and proceedings are discouraged [146]
and it is out of order to question a Senator’s integrity, honesty or character. [147]
This “prevents fruitless arguments between Members of two distinct bodies who are unable to reply to each other,
and guards against recrimination and offensive language in the absence of the other party.” [148]
Reflections on the Chair
Reflections must not be cast in debate on the conduct of the Speaker or other presiding officers. [149]
It is unacceptable to question the integrity and impartiality of a presiding officer and if such comments are made,
the Speaker will interrupt the Member and may request that the remarks be withdrawn. [150]
Only by means of a substantive motion for which 48 hours’ written notice has been given, may the actions of the
Chair be challenged, criticized and debated. [151]
Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker or other presiding officers have been ruled to be breaches of
privilege. [152]
References to the Sovereign, Royal Family, Governor General and Members of the Judiciary
Members are prohibited from speaking disrespectfully of the Sovereign, the Royal Family, the Governor General or the
Administrator of the Government of Canada (in the absence of the Governor General). [153]
In the same way, a reference to anyone of these persons is also prohibited when it appears to be used to influence the
work of the House. [154]
As noted in May: “ … Her Majesty cannot be supposed to have a private opinion, apart from
that of her responsible advisers; and any attempt to use her name in debate to influence the judgement of Parliament is
immediately checked and censured. This rule also extends to other members of the royal family, but it is not strictly
applied in cases where one of its members has made a public statement on a matter of current interest so long as comment
is made in appropriate terms.” [155]
All attacks and censures of judges and courts by Members in debate have always been considered unparliamentary and,
consequently, treated as breaches of order. [156]
As Acting Speaker McClelland explained to the House, “This is a longstanding tradition in our Parliament that we be
cautious when we attack individuals or groups, particularly in the judiciary, and those who are unable to come in here and
have the same right of free expression as we enjoy with impunity here.” [157]
While it is permissible to speak in general terms about the judiciary or to criticize a law, it is inappropriate to
criticize or impute motives to a specific judge or to criticize a decision made under the law by a judge. [158]
Reference by Name to Members of the Public
Members are discouraged from referring by name to persons who are not Members of Parliament and who do not enjoy
parliamentary immunity, except in extraordinary circumstances when the national interest calls for the naming of an
individual. The Speaker has ruled that Members have a responsibility to protect the innocent, not only from outright
slander but from any slur directly or indirectly implied, and has stressed that Members should avoid as much as
possible mentioning by name people from outside the House who are unable to reply and defend themselves against
innuendo. [159]
Reference to Previous Debates and Proceedings
In the past, reference to prior debates of the current session were generally discouraged in order to economize the
time of the House and to prevent Members from reviving a debate that had concluded, unless the remarks were relevant
to the matter under discussion. [160]
Today, the Speaker’s attention is rarely, if ever, drawn to breaches of this rule. Generally, Members should
not quote from their former speeches or from the speeches of their colleagues made during the current session; [161]
the rule does not apply to speeches on different stages of a bill. [162]
Direct reference is permitted, however, when a Member wishes to complain of something said or to clear up a
misrepresentation or make a personal explanation. [163]
Members may not speak against or reflect upon any decision of the House. [164]
This stems from the well-established rule which holds that a question, once put and carried in the affirmative or
negative, cannot be questioned again. Such reflections are not in order because the Member is bound by a vote agreed
to by a majority. [165]
The Chair has been quick to call attention to reflections on votes. [166]
However, if a Member gives notice of his or her intention to move a motion that a vote be rescinded, the House may
reconsider an earlier resolution or order. [167]
Unparliamentary Language
The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus,
the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks,
insults and obscene language or words are not in order. [168]
A direct charge or accusation against a Member may be made only by way of a substantive motion for which notice is
required. [169]
If language used in debate is questionable, the Speaker will intervene. Nonetheless, any Member who feels aggrieved by a
remark or allegation may also bring the matter to the immediate attention of the Speaker on a point of order. Points of
order may not be raised during Members’ Statements or Question Period, [170]
however, the Speaker may address a matter of unparliamentary language at once if he or she believes the matter to be
sufficiently serious to require immediate attention. [171]
Normally, the matter is resolved at the conclusion of Question Period. [172]
Since the Speaker must rule on the basis of the context in which the language was used, points of order raised in regard
to questionable language must be raised as soon as possible after the irregularity has occurred. [173]
If the Speaker did not hear the alleged unparliamentary language or if there is a dispute as to the words actually used,
the Chair may set aside the matter pending a review of the record and, if necessary, return to the House at a later time
with a ruling. [174]
The Speaker has also ruled that if the Chair did not hear the offensive word or phrase and if the offensive language was
not recorded in Debates, the Chair cannot be expected to rule where there is no record. [175]
In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member
speaking; the person to whom the words were directed; the degree of provocation; and, most importantly, whether or not
the remarks created disorder in the Chamber. [176]
Thus, language deemed unparliamentary one day may not necessarily be deemed unparliamentary the following day. The
codification of unparliamentary language has proven impractical as it is the context in which words or phrases are used
that the Chair must consider when deciding whether or not they should be withdrawn. [177]
Although an expression may be found to be acceptable, the Speaker has cautioned that any language which leads to disorder
in the House should not be used. Expressions which are considered unparliamentary when applied to an individual Member
have not always been considered so when applied “in a generic sense” or to a party. [178]
Should the Speaker determine that offensive or disorderly language has been used, the Member will be requested to withdraw
the unparliamentary word or phrase. The Member must rise in his or her place to retract the words unequivocally. The
Member’s apology is accepted in good faith and the matter is then considered closed. [179]
However, if the Member persists in refusing to obey the directive of the Speaker to retract his or her words, the Chair
may refuse to recognize the Member until the words have been withdrawn [180]
or may “name” the Member for disregarding the authority of the Chair and order him or her to withdraw from the
Chamber for the remainder of the sitting. [181]
In 1991, following several incidents of unparliamentary language, [182]
a government motion respecting decorum and civility was brought before the House. The motion was debated on three occasions
but never came to a vote. [183]
Repetition and Relevance in Debate
The rules of relevance and repetition [184]
are intertwined and mutually reinforcing. The requirement of relevance is necessary in order that the House might exercise
its right to reach a decision and to exclude from debate any discussion which does not contribute to that process. The rule
against repetition ensures that once all that is relevant to the debate has been presented, the question will be determined
once and for all, at least during the current session. To have one rule without the other would seriously limit the ability
of the House to use its time efficiently.
The rules respecting relevance and repetition are somewhat difficult to define and enforce. The rule against repetition can
be invoked by the Speaker to prevent a Member from repeating arguments already made in the debate by other Members or the
same Member. [185]
The rule of relevance, on the other hand, is used to keep a Member from straying from the question before the House or
committee. It is not always possible to judge the relevance (or the repetition) of a Member’s remarks until he or she
has made some progress in or completed his or her remarks. [186]
In practice, the Speaker allows some latitude— if the rules are applied too rigidly, they have the potential for
severely curtailing debate; if applied too loosely and precious debating time is lost, they may prevent other Members from
participating in debate. Individual circumstances, the mood of the House and the relative importance of the subject of debate
will influence how strictly the Speaker interprets these rules.
In exercising the power to maintain the rules against irrelevance and repetition, the Speaker can call a Member to order
and, if necessary, warn the Member that he or she risks being directed to discontinue his or her speech. Such warnings are
usually sufficient. However, should the Member continue being irrelevant or repetitious, the Speaker can proceed to
recognize another Member or, if no other Member wishes to speak, to put the question. In the event that the Member should
disregard the Speaker’s instruction or direction, the Speaker has the authority to “name” the Member. [187]
Historical Perspective
It is not certain when the British House of Commons originally adopted the practice of restraining debate that was either
repetitious or irrelevant. However, it seems to have been well established by the end of the sixteenth century. A manual of
procedure dating from the era of the Elizabethan Parliaments listed among the powers of the Speaker the right to call a
Member to order when “any speak to a Bil[sic] and be out of the matter”. [188]
During the same period, Speaker Popham, upon his election to the Chair in 1580, requested that Members “speak to the
matter … and not to spend too much time in unnecessary motions or superfluous argument”. [189]
The Journals for 1604 suggest that the rule of relevance was adopted that year as an order of the House and Hatsell
cited it in this form: “That if any man speak impertinently, or beside the question in hand, it stands with the orders
of the House for the Speaker to interrupt him, and to know the pleasure of the House, whether they will further hear him.” [190]
In addition to this rule, the House soon thereafter adopted another prohibiting repetition. [191]
Both rules were difficult to enforce, particularly that on relevance which obliged the Speaker to obtain the support of the
House in order to direct a Member to keep to the subject of debate. During the eighteenth century, interventions by Speakers
were so rare that Members sometimes resented interruptions when they did take place. Even so formidable a character as
Speaker Arthur Onslow could not manage to enforce the rule by his own authority. [192]
When in 1867, the Canadian House of Commons adopted its rules, no reference was made to repetition in debate, and the rule on
relevance was mentioned only in the context of a general order of debate which enjoined Members not to “speak beside the
question in debate”. [193]
Beyond advising the Member to speak to the subject, the Speaker depended almost entirely upon the support of the House and the
goodwill of the Members to uphold the rule.
In a revision of the rules in 1910, the power of the Speaker was augmented. The Chair was empowered to direct a Member to
discontinue his or her speech if the Chair deemed it either irrelevant or repetitious after having called the attention of the
House to the matter. [194]
In moving the adoption of this rule, Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier observed that it was “the English rule copied word
for word”. [195]
This was hardly less true of the rule which dealt with relevance in a Committee of the Whole and which was adopted at the same
time: “Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.” [196]
When the rules were revised in 1927, the role of the Speaker was further clarified. Anticipating the circumstances when a
Member might refuse to accept the direction of the Speaker, a special committee on procedure provided for that event by giving
the Speaker the power to “name” the recalcitrant Member or, if in committee, to permit the Chairman to report the
Member to the House. These changes were accepted by the House without amendment or debate and have remained unchanged to the
present time. [197]
The Rule Against Repetition
The rule prohibiting repetition is designed primarily to safeguard the right of the House to reach a decision and to guard
against the inefficient use of the time of the House. Although the principle is clear and sensible, it has not always been
easy to apply. [198]
The scope of the rule permits the Speaker to exercise considerable discretion. The Chair can use the rule to curtail prolonged
debate by limiting Members’ speeches to points which have not already been made. [199]
In the context of the legislative process, this latter restriction applies to the Members’ remarks only within the same
stage of debate on a bill. Arguments advanced at one stage may legitimately be represented at another. The purpose of the
rule is to safeguard the right of the House to reach a decision. The freedom of debate enjoyed by Members does not extend to
the right to repeat arguments that have already been heard. [200]
Finally, the rule against repetition has been used by Speakers in various other ways to assist the House in making efficient
use of its time. Speakers have ruled out of order the tedious reading of letters even when they were used to support an
argument; [201]
the asking of a question during Question Period which was similar to another already asked that day; [202]
and the repeating of questions of privilege on the same subject matter. [203]
The Rule of Relevance
Although the House now has rules to limit the length of speeches, at one time there were few limits and debate often strayed
beyond the subject in question. In 1882, Bourinot felt the need to add this comment to his study on parliamentary practice:
A just regard to the privileges and dignity of Parliament demands that its time should not be wasted in idle and fruitless
discussion; and consequently every member, who addresses the house, should endeavour to confine himself as closely as possible
to the question under consideration. [204]
This advice still applies today as the business of government is much more complex and the time of the House is limited. Thus,
should a Member stray from the question before the House, the Speaker invokes the rule of relevance. In many instances, the
Speaker has done this by indicating to a Member who has been called to order, the proper subject matter of the debate and how
the Member’s remarks were irrelevant. [205]
In particular, during the 10-minute questions and comments period following most speeches, if a Member does not address his
or her remarks to the arguments expressed in the speech, the Chair will invoke the rule of relevance. [206]
Despite such instances, Speakers tend to be mindful of the need for some leniency in applying the rule. [207]
Speakers have allowed reference to other matters in debate, if they were made in passing and were not the principal theme of
the speech. [208]
The rule of relevance applies not only to debate on a main motion but also to any proposed amendments to the main motion. [209]
Should an amendment be proposed to a motion, the rule of relevance requires that debate be limited to that amendment until it
is disposed of by the House. [210]
Arguments ruled irrelevant during debate on a main motion are similarly irrelevant if introduced as the substance of an amendment.
Even if the amendment proposes to replace all the words in the main motion after “that” and substitute an alternative
proposition, debate is restricted to the main motion and the amendment; further alternative propositions are irrelevant. [211]
Once an amendment is disposed of by the House, it then becomes possible to debate the main motion in its full scope or to consider
another amendment.
The previous question has a character that is exceptional with respect to the rule of relevance. “That the question be now
put” does nothing to hinder debate on the original motion. On the contrary, Members who have already participated in the
debate may speak on the motion again, after the previous question has been moved. [212]
However, care must be taken to avoid repetition.
Bills
The relevance of debate to a motion before the House applies especially to the consideration of bills as they proceed through the
several stages prior to their adoption. According to the practice which developed originally in the British House of Commons,
“each stage is regarded as having its own peculiar function and to a certain extent its more or less limited range of debate.” [213]
These functions, in turn, provide both the Speaker and the House with guidelines by which to apply the rule of relevance. Thus,
for example, the second reading stage of a bill is limited to debate on its principle, whereas debate at report stage treats only
motions offered in amendment to a bill. Despite the several occasions allowed to the House to discuss a bill, the scope of debate
is supposed to be different at each stage.
• Second Reading
During debate on second reading, there is a frequent temptation to delve into the clauses of a bill instead of considering the
principle of the bill. Such debate is in breach of the rule of relevance. Most interruptions made by the Speaker are usually
directed at preventing Members from discussing specific provisions of the bill rather than its principle. [214]
In one ruling, the Speaker stated quite clearly that “on a motion for second reading it is out of order to discuss the
clauses of the bill.” [215]
When the House is considering an amending bill, the rule requires that debate at second reading be limited to the principle of
the amending bill and not the subject matter of the Act which it is amending. [216]
• Committee Stage
The referral of a bill to a committee opens the way for close examination of its contents, clause by clause. Today, most bills are
sent to standing committees for study, but in the past, the consideration of bills more often took place in a Committee of the
Whole and it was in this larger forum that the practice governing the scrutiny of bills developed. Pursuant to the Standing Orders,
speeches made in a Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. [217]
Chairmen have frequently cited this rule and requested that Members observe it. [218]
The same practice applies in standing, special or legislative committees considering bills.
An important exception to the rule of relevance in committee is found in the wide-ranging debate permitted on Clause 1, or that
clause which follows the short title clause. Although there is no provision for this practice in the Standing Orders, it has
become an accepted practice since at least the 1930s. [219]
Over the years, Chairmen have grappled with the rules of debate on Clause 1 and have established certain limitations. These
include proscriptions against repetition of second reading debate and against the anticipation of clause by clause debate. [220]
Moreover, general debate on Clause 1 cannot extend outside the contents of the bill. [221]
A further limitation arises when an amendment has been proposed to Clause 1. In the words of a Chairman who ruled on the issue:
“Once an amendment has been moved, I think discussion should be confirmed [sic] to the amendment until the matter has
been disposed of but, afterward, other general remarks can be made.” [222]
This judgement has been confirmed by practice and by a later ruling. [223]
• Report Stage
According to Beauchesne, the report stage of a bill “is one of reconsideration of events which have taken place
in committee. The consideration of a bill is now a more formal repetition of the committee stage with the applicable rules of
debate which are proper when the Speaker is in the Chair.” [224]
Report stage motions are amendments to clauses in a bill which seek to change, to delete or to restore those clauses. To avoid
excessive repetition of debate, the Speaker has the power to select and to combine motions in amendment. [225]
The Speaker can also control debate through the use of the relevance rule as applied to debate on clauses of a bill. Despite the
resemblance of debate at report stage to that at committee stage, there is no allowance for a wide-ranging discussion of a bill as
occurs by practice in committee on study of Clause 1. [226]
• Third Reading
Debate on third reading is designed to review the legislative measure in its final form and is strictly confined to the contents of
the bill. [227]
If an amendment is moved, debate should be relevant to that amendment until the House disposes of it. [228]
Debates on the Address in Reply and the Budget
The traditions and practices of the House allow for the rule of relevance to be relaxed somewhat during debate on the motion for an
Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. During the days allotted to the debate on this motion, Members have the opportunity
“to bring forward topics of their own choosing”. [229]
Consequently, debate tends to be very wide-ranging and the Speaker usually makes no effort to apply the rule of relevance. This is
not the case, however, when the House is debating the Budget. The remarks of Members must be relevant to the motion before the House.
All the same, the terms of the motion (i.e., that the House approves of the general budgetary policy of the government) are
sufficiently broad to permit Members great latitude in their remarks without violating the principle of the rule. [230]
The Sub Judice Convention
During debate, restrictions are placed on the freedom of Members of Parliament to make reference to matters awaiting judicial
decisions in the interests of justice and fair play. Such matters are also barred from being the subject of motions or questions in
the House. While precedents exist for the guidance of the Chair, no attempt has ever been made to codify the practice known as the
“sub judice convention”. [231]
The interpretation of this convention is left to the Speaker since no “rule” exists to prevent Parliament from
discussing a matter which is sub judice, that is, “under the consideration of a judge or court”.
The sub judice convention is first and foremost a voluntary restraint on the part of the House to protect an accused person,
or other party to a court action or judicial inquiry, from suffering any prejudicial effect from public discussion of the issue. [232]
Secondly, the convention also exists, as Speaker Fraser noted, “to maintain a separation and mutual respect between legislative
and judicial branches of government”. [233]
Thus, the perception and reality of the independence of the judiciary must be jealously guarded. However, as Speaker Sauvé
explained, the sub judice convention has never stood in the way of the House considering a prima facie matter of
privilege vital to the public interest or to the effective operation of the House and its Members. [234]
There are some situations in which the application of the sub judice convention has been fairly straightforward. The
convention has been applied to motions, references in debates, questions and supplementary questions. [235]
It has also been applied consistently in criminal cases. However, the convention does not apply to bills, as the right of Parliament
to legislate must not be limited. [236]
If the sub judice convention were to apply to bills, the whole legislative process could be stopped simply by the initiation
of a writ or legal proceedings in one or other of the courts of Canada.
Criminal and Civil Cases
No distinction has ever been made in Canada between criminal courts and civil courts for the purpose of applying the convention,
and it has also had application to certain tribunals other than courts of law. The sub judice convention exists to guarantee
everyone a fair trial and to prevent any undue influence prejudicing a judicial decision or a report of a tribunal of inquiry.
Indeed, in the view of the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members, “prejudice is most likely to occur in
respect of criminal cases and civil cases of defamation where juries are involved.” [237]
Where criminal cases are concerned, the precedents are consistent in barring reference to such matters before judgement has been
rendered and during any appeal. Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before a criminal court, not only in
order to protect those persons who are undergoing trial and stand to be affected whatever its outcome, but also because the trial
could be affected by debate in the House. [238]
It has been established that the convention would cease to apply, as far as criminal cases are concerned, when judgement has been
rendered. [239]
The Speaker has confirmed that a matter becomes sub judice again if an appeal is entered following a judgement. [240]
The precedents are not as consistent where civil cases are concerned. The convention has been applied on some occasions [241]
and not on others. [242]
However, in 1976, the Speaker ruled that no restriction ought to exist on the right of any Member to put questions respecting any
matter before the courts, particularly those relating to a civil matter, unless and until that matter is at least at trial. [243]
Although nothing resembling a settled practice has developed in relation to civil cases, the Chair has warned on various occasions
of the need for caution in referring to matters pending judicial decisions whatever the nature of the court. [244]
Courts of Record and Royal Commissions
From the precedents, it is clear that the application of the convention is limited to tribunals designated by statute as courts of
record. [245]
(A court of record is defined as follows: “A court that is required to keep a record of its proceedings, and that may fine or
imprison. Such record imports verity and cannot be collaterally impeached.” [246] )
The sub judice convention does not apply, however, to matters referred to royal commissions, although the Chair has cautioned
against making reference to the proceedings, evidence, or findings of a royal commission before it has made its report. [247]
The Role of the Speaker
Since the sub judice convention is not codified and is voluntary, the jurisdiction of the Speaker in such matters is somewhat
difficult to outline. The Speaker’s discretionary authority over matters sub judice derives from his or her role as
guardian of free speech in the House. The Chair has the duty to balance the rights of the House with the rights and interests of the
ordinary citizen undergoing trial. Indeed, the Speaker exercises discretion in exceptional cases only where it is clear that to do
otherwise would be harmful to specific individuals. The problem facing a Speaker is that determining when a comment will have a
tendency to influence is speculative business — it cannot be done until after the remarks have been made.
In its inquiry, the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members recommended that when there is doubt in the mind of
the Chair, a presumption should exist in favour of allowing debate and against the application of the convention. [248]
The Committee concluded that while there can be no substitute for the discretion of the Chair, in the last resort all Members of
the House should share in the responsibility of exercising restraint when it seems called for. [249]
A Member who feels that there could be a risk of causing prejudice in referring to a particular case or inquiry should refrain from
raising the matter. Furthermore, a Member who calls for the suppression of discussion of a matter on grounds of sub judice
should be obliged to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Chair that he or she has reasonable grounds for fearing that prejudice
might result. [250]
It was also the view of the Committee that the responsibility of the Chair particularly during Question Period should be minimal in
regard to the sub judice convention, and that the responsibility should principally rest upon the Member who asks the
question and the Minister to whom it is addressed. Should a question to a Minister touch upon a matter sub judice, it is
likely that the Minister involved will have more information covering the matter than the Speaker, and the Minister might be better
able to judge whether answering the question might cause prejudice. In such a situation, the Minister could refuse to answer the
question on these grounds, bearing in mind that refusal to answer a question is his or her prerogative. From the precedents, this
appears to be the approach the Chair has taken. [251]
The Speaker has interrupted only if he or she has felt the sub judice convention was being breached. [252]
Personal Explanations
The Chair may occasionally grant leave to a Member to explain a matter of a personal nature although there is no question before the
House. This is commonly referred to by Members as “a point of personal privilege” and is an indulgence granted by the
Chair. There is no connection to a question of privilege, and one Speaker noted, “There is no legal authority, procedural or
otherwise, historic or precedential, that allows this.” [253]
Consequently, such occasions are not meant to be used for general debate and Members have been cautioned to confine their remarks to
the point they wish to make. [254]
When granted, they have been used by Members notably to announce a resignation [255]
or to explain changes in party affiliation, matters affecting them which have occurred outside the Chamber or misinterpreted statements. [256]
Points of Order
A point of order is a question raised by a Member who believes that the rules or customary procedures of the House
have been incorrectly applied or overlooked during the proceedings. Members may rise on points of order to bring to
the attention of the Chair any breach of the relevance or repetition rules, unparliamentary remarks, or a lack of
quorum. [257]
They are able to do so at virtually any time in the proceedings, provided the point of order is raised and concisely
argued [258]
as soon as the irregularity occurs. [259]
Points of order respecting procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which
the objection would be out of place. As a point of order concerns the interpretation of the rules of procedure, it
is the responsibility of the Speaker to determine its merits and to resolve the issue. [260]
Although Members frequently rise claiming a point of order, genuine points of order rarely occur. Indeed, points of
order are often used by Members in an attempt to gain the floor to participate in debate; in such cases, the Speaker
will not allow the Member intervening to continue. [261]
One point of order must be disposed of before another one is raised. Should a point of order be raised during
consideration of a question of privilege, the point of order will be given precedence until the Chair has determined
whether or not a rule has been breached and the matter settled. [262]
The Speaker has, on occasion, refused to hear a point of order during the consideration of a question of privilege. [263]
The necessity to control disorder either on the floor or in the galleries would oblige the Speaker to put aside a
point of order temporarily.
Raising a Point of Order
Any Member can interrupt a Member who has the floor of the House during debate and bring to the Chair’s
attention a procedural irregularity the moment it occurs, in which case the Member who has the floor resumes his
or her seat until the matter is resolved or disposed of. [264]
When recognized on a point of order, a Member should only state which Standing Order or practice he or she
considers to have been breached; if this is not done, the Speaker may request that the Member do so.
Under the Standing Orders, a brief debate on the point of order is possible at the Speaker’s discretion. [265]
This rule was carried over at Confederation from the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada. [266]
Many Members interpreted the rule to mean that any question of order was to be discussed before the Speaker ruled.
In fact, the practice and rule did not coincide until 1906, when the rule was amended to legitimize the custom of
allowing debate on points of order at the discretion of the Speaker. [267]
In the early 1980s, there were increasingly prolonged discussions on points of order, and Chair occupants felt
compelled to intervene and sometimes to refuse to recognize Members on points of order. [268]
Despite pressure from Members, successive Speakers relied more and more on the literal meaning of the Standing
Order and, while still allowing debates on points of order, limited these considerably. When a point of order is
raised during a speech, the Speaker will decide whether the intervention is included in the amount of time
allotted to that particular stage of debate. [269]
There are numerous exceptions to the rule that a point of order must be raised at the moment a procedural
irregularity occurs. Points of order arising out of the debate on the adjournment motion (Adjournment Proceedings)
are taken up on the next sitting day. [270]
Points of order arising out of Question Period or the time set aside for Statements by Members are usually delayed
until after Question Period. [271]
From Confederation until 1975, it was the practice of the House that points of order were raised as soon as the
procedural irregularities on which they were based occurred, including during Question Period. [272]
In 1975, however, as part of a reform in the sequencing of House business and the conduct of Question Period, the
House agreed that points of order should not be raised during Question Period. [273]
Although the decision of the House in this regard resulted in only a provisional understanding, successive Speakers
upheld its spirit, despite strong objections from Members, even after it ceased to be in effect in October 1977 when
the House failed to make certain sessional orders permanent. The Speaker nevertheless continued this new practice. [274]
The condition was also applied, in 1982, to the time for Members’ Statements. [275]
The practice was finally codified in the Standing Orders in 1986. [276]
If a Member rises on a point of order during Statements by Members or Question Period, the Speaker advises that he
will hear the Member after Question Period. [277]
Any other matter being raised as a point of order should be brought to the Speaker’s attention after Routine
Proceedings (held at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesda and Thursday, at 3:00 p.m. on Monday and Wednesday, and at 12:00 noon on
Friday), [278]
although the Speaker now typically invites Members to raise such points of order following Question Period.
A Member may not direct remarks to the House or engage in debate by raising a matter under the guise of a point of
order. [279]
A Member may not rise on a point of order to move the adjournment of the House, [280]
the adjournment of debate, or the extension of the sitting [281]
or to proceed to the Orders of the Day. [282]
In addition, Members may not rise on a point of order during a quorum count. [283]
Despite the rule that Members may not rise on a point of order to move a substantive motion, [284]
Members frequently rise on points of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move such a motion. [285]
During Routine Proceedings, Members have been permitted to rise on points of order to ask about the status of a
question on the Order Paper [286]
or of a notice of motion for the production of papers. [287]
Members have also risen on points of order to seek unanimous consent to extend the time for questions and comments
following a speech [288]
or to proceed to Private Members’ Business before the designated hour. [289]
A Minister may rise on a point of order at any time during a sitting to table a notice of a Ways and Means motion,
although the Chair has suggested that such notices should be tabled at the end of Government Orders and before the
start of Private Members’ Hour, or after a Member has resumed his or her seat and before another Member is
recognized during debate. [290]
A Minister may also rise on a point of order at any time during the proceedings to give oral notice of a time
allocation [291]
or closure [292]
motion.
A point of order may be raised after debate has concluded but before the Speaker puts the question, or after the vote
hasbeen taken, but a Member may not interrupt the Speaker when he or she is putting the question to the House. [293]
There have been occasions when the Chair was obliged to refuse points of order either after calling in the Members
for a vote or before declaring the result of the division. [294]
If attention is called to a breach of order during the course of a division, the division is completed before the
point of order is dealt with. [295]
Points of order related to the vote are typically raised immediately after the announcement of the result of the vote. [296]
Ruling on a Point of Order
The Speaker has the duty to preserve order and decorum and to decide any matter of procedure that may arise. [297]
The Chair is bound to call the attention of the House to an irregularity in debate or procedure immediately, without
waiting for the intervention of a Member. In addition, the Speaker decides questions of order once they arise and not
in anticipation. Though raised on a point of order, hypothetical queries on procedure cannot be addressed to the
Speaker nor may constitutional questions or questions of law. [298]
When a point of order is raised, the Speaker attempts to rule on the matter immediately. However, if necessary, the
Speaker may take the matter under advisement and come back to the House later with a formal ruling. [299]
In doubtful cases, the Speaker may also allow discussion on the point of order before coming to a decision but the
comments must be strictly relevant to the point raised. [300]
When a decision on a question of order is reached, the Speaker supports the decision with quotations from the Standing
Orders or the authorities, or simply by citing the number of the applicable Standing Order. [301]
Once the decision is rendered, the matter is no longer open to debate or discussion and the ruling cannot be appealed
to the House. [302]
A Member may not rise on a point of order to discuss a matter which the Speaker has already ruled was not a question
of privilege [303]
or to raise a matter as a question of privilege after the Speaker has ruled that it was not a point of order. [304]
Rules of Decorum
A number of rules and traditions are enforced by the Speaker in order to ensure that debate proceeds in a civil and
orderly manner. A Member must be in his or her place to take part in any proceedings in the House and address his or
her remarks to the Chair. [305]
In order to prevent unnecessary interruptions when a Member is speaking, no other Member is to cross between the
Chair and the Member who is addressing the Chair. [306]
The only interruption permitted is for a Member to raise a point of order. [307]
As nothing should come between the Speaker and the symbol of his or her authority (the Mace), no Member is to pass
between the Chair and the Table, or between the Chair and the Mace when the Mace is being taken off the Table by the
Sergeant-at-Arms. [308]
A Member must sit down when the Chair occupant rises. [309]
When Members cross the floor of the House, or otherwise leave their places, they should bow to the Speaker. When the
House adjourns, Members are expected to stay in their seats until the Speaker has left the Chair, although in practice
most Members merely pause, whether standing or sitting, during the procession out of the Chamber. [310]
In the Chamber, Members may refresh themselves with glasses of water during debate, but the consumption of any other
beverage or food is not allowed. [311]
Smoking has never been permitted in the Chamber. The use of cellular phones is not allowed in the Chamber. [312]
Since 1994, Members have been permitted to use laptop computers in the Chamber provided that their use does not cause
disorder or interfere with the Member who has the floor.
The Speaker usually turns a blind eye to the many incidental interruptions, such as applause, [313]
shouts of approval or disapproval, or heckling [314]
that sometimes punctuates speeches, as long as disorder does not arise. [315]
Members have been called to order for whistling and singing during another Member’s speech. [316]
Excessive interruptions are swiftly curtailed, particularly when the Member speaking requests the assistance of the Chair. [317]
Speakers have consistently attempted to discourage loud private conversations in the Chamber and have urged those wishing
to carry on such exchanges to do so outside the Chamber. [318]
Decorum During the Taking of a Vote
During the taking of a vote, no Member is permitted to enter, walk out of or across the House or make any noise or
disturbance from the time the Speaker begins to put the question until the results of the vote are announced. [319]
Members must be in their seats to vote and must remain seated until the result of the vote is announced. [320]
Members who enter the Chamber while the question is being put, or after it has been put, cannot have their vote
counted. [321]
As is the rule in the House during a recorded division, no Member may enter a Committee of the Whole while a
division is in progress. [322]
On one occasion, the Speaker interrupted the calling of a vote to request that a leader of an opposition party remove
a prop because of the disorder it was creating in the Chamber. [323]
The Speaker has also asked Members standing in the middle aisle to take their seats or to leave the Chamber in order
that the House could proceed with the taking of a vote. [324]
Powers of the Chair to Enforce Order and Decorum
The Speaker ensures that debate conforms to the rules and practices that the House has adopted in order to protect
itself from excesses. While the House is the master of its own proceedings and the Speaker its servant, the Speaker
has extensive powers to enforce rules of debate and maintain order so that the House can conduct its business in an
orderly fashion. Indeed, the Standing Orders state explicitly that the Speaker shall preserve order and decorum,
and decide questions of order. [325]
In addition, the Standing Orders empower the Speaker to call a Member to order if the Member persists in repeating
an argument already made in the course of debate or in addressing a subject which is not relevant to the question
before the House. [326]
The preservation of order and decorum has been a duty of the Speaker since 1867, but the task was never as difficult
later as it was in the early years of Confederation. Speakers at that time were regularly confronted with rude and
disorderly conduct which they were unable to control. The throwing of paper, [327]
books, [328]
and other missiles, including firecrackers in one case, [329]
combined with the noise Members made imitating cats, [330]
making music [331]
and generally being loud, made for a very riotous assembly. [332]
The early twentieth century House was a much more austere and calm place, although in 1913, during the debate on the
naval bill, the House very nearly got out of control. [333]
Subsequent occasions of turbulence were infrequent and usually occurred in connection with the imposition of closure. [334]
It was not until 1956, during the Pipeline Debate, that the Speaker again had great difficulty preserving order. [335]
The 1960s with a succession of minority governments and the late 1970s with the introduction of televised sittings
also proved a challenge. Speakers Jerome, Sauvé, Francis and Bosley all had to contend with scores of language
breaches and other violations of order and decorum. [336]
During the 1990s, both Speaker Fraser and Speaker Parent had to deal with a number of incidents of disruptive behaviour. [337]
Accepted conventions of parliamentary conduct and respect for the authority of the Chair are normally sufficient
guarantees that order and decorum are maintained during debate and other proceedings. However, if a rule of debate
is being breached, [338]
the Speaker will intervene directly to address a Member or the House in general and to call to order any Member whose
conduct is disruptive. [339]
The Speaker’s declarations on disorderly or indecorous conduct are typically made quickly before any discussion
takes place.
Members rarely defy the Speaker’s authority or risk evoking the Chair’s disciplinary powers. If a Member
challenges the authority of the Chair by refusing to obey the Speaker’s call to order, to withdraw unparliamentary
language, to cease irrelevance or repetition, or to stop interrupting a Member who is addressing the House, the Chair
has recourse to a number of options. The Speaker may recognize another Member, [340]
or refuse to recognize the Member until the offending remarks are retracted and the Member apologizes. [341]
As a last resort, the Chair may “name” a Member, the most severe disciplinary power at the Speaker’s
disposal.
Naming
Naming describes a disciplinary measure invoked against a Member who persistently disregards the authority of the Chair.
If a Member refuses to heed the Speaker’s requests to bring his or her behaviour into line with the rules and
practices of the House, the Speaker has the authority to name the Member, that is, to address the Member by name rather
than by constituency or title as is the usual practice, and to order his or her withdrawal from the Chamber for the
remainder of the sitting day. [342]
Alternatively, the Speaker may prefer to let the House take any supplementary disciplinary action it may choose. In either
case, naming is a coercive measure of last resort.
Historical Perspective
Until 1927, the British practice of naming Members applied in both the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada
before Confederation and in the House of Commons after Confederation. [343]
Although there were instances of naming before Confederation, [344]
from 1867 until 1927 there was only one case. In 1913, Speaker Sproule, who had taken the Chair to quell disorder in a
Committee of the Whole, cited a British rule and named Mr. Clark (Red Deer) for “disregarding the authority of the
Chair and flagrantly violating the rules of the House.” [345]
After the Member was named, he apologized to the House and the House considered his explanation satisfactory. No motion
to suspend him was proposed. [346]
Still, in the 46-year interval between Confederation and 1913 and in the years 1914-27, there were times when the Speaker,
facing Members unwilling to respect the Chair’s calls to order, might have resorted to naming but did not. [347]
When the naming sanction was formally provided for in the 1927 Standing Orders, [348]
it referred simply to the Speaker’s power to name a Member who engaged in persistent irrelevance or repetition; [349]
no reference was made to naming a Member for refusing to retract unparliamentary language or for disregarding the authority
of the Chair. Furthermore, the Standing Orders did not specify the procedure to be followed after a Member had been named. [350]
It was not until 15 years later, in 1942, that the first incident of naming occurred under the amended Standing Orders. In
this case, after Speaker Glen had named Mr. Lacombe (Laval–Two Mountains), the Minister of Finance immediately moved
a motion to suspend Mr. Lacombe. The motion carried easily. [351]
Thus, the practice developed that after being named by the Speaker, a Minister, usually the Government House Leader, would
move a motion to suspend the Member, typically for the remainder of the day’s sitting. Subsequent naming incidents
occurred in 1944 (twice), 1956, 1961, 1962 (twice) and 1964. [352]
Beginning in 1978, after television had been introduced in the Chamber, the frequency of naming increased dramatically. [353]
Possibly even more significant than the rise in the number of namings was the fact that the House appeared increasingly
willing to divide on the subsequent motion to suspend the offending Member. This placed the Speaker in a potentially
vulnerable position in that after naming a Member, it was up to a Minister (usually the Government House Leader) to move
a motion to suspend the Member, and since the motion was votable, it could be defeated. Thus, the authority of the Speaker
depended, in each case of naming, on the initial support of the government to move the motion and on the subsequent support
of the House to adopt it. [354]
In 1985, as the number of naming incidents continued to increase, the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons
(the McGrath Committee) addressed the question of “whether the disciplinary powers of the Chair should be clarified
and strengthened”. [355]
The Committee’s final report recommended “that the Speaker be empowered to order the withdrawal of a member
for the remainder of a sitting … [and] that the proceedings consequent upon the naming of a member be set out in
the Standing Orders.” [356]
In February 1986, the government tabled proposed amendments to the Standing Orders that went beyond the recommendation of
the Committee to include measures that would allow the Speaker, on ordering the withdrawal of a Member for the second or
any subsequent occasion during a session, to suspend him or her for a period of five days without resort to motion. [357]
During debate on the motion to adopt these new provisions, Members expressed strong support for the concept of granting
the Speaker authority to order the withdrawal of a Member for one sitting, but were equally hesitant to extend such power
further, preferring to leave subsequent punishments in the hands of the House itself. [358]
In February 1986, the House agreed to amendments to the proposed changes to the Standing Orders, and they came into effect
that same month. [359]
The rule changes left untouched the Standing Order that had existed since 1927 [360]
but added a new Standing Order granting the Speaker the authority to order the withdrawal of a Member for the remainder of
the sitting. [361]
Although the method of naming, followed by a votable motion to suspend the Member for a specified period of time, has not
been resorted to since October 1985, [362]
it remains a practice which can still be referred to by the Speaker or invoked by the House.
The Process of Naming
The Speaker typically calls upon a Member who has transgressed the established standards of decorum to retract the offending
words or otherwise apologize without qualification. Should the Member hesitate or refuse to comply, the Speaker normally
repeats the request, often with a warning that the persistent disregard will result in the Member being named. Such exchanges
may continue at the Speaker’s discretion, but once it is clear that the Member will not comply, the Speaker names him
or her, and orders a withdrawal for the remainder of the sitting day. In naming a Member, the Speaker will say:
(Name of Member), it is my duty to name you for disregarding the authority of the Chair, and
to direct your withdrawal from the House for the remainder of the sitting.
Alternately, in some circumstances, after naming a Member but before ordering a withdrawal from the House, the Speaker may
wish the House to decide what disciplinary action to take against a Member. This option involves a motion, usually proposed
by the Government House Leader, to suspend the Member named from the service of the House for a specified period of time.
This motion is neither debatable nor amendable. It carries a greater penalty since suspension from the service of the House
bars the Member not only from attendance in the Chamber, but also from committees and the proposed suspension may exceed
the remainder of the sitting. Notices standing in the name of the suspended Member are removed from the Notice Paper
for each day that the Member is suspended. [363]
The Speaker may also order the Sergeant-at-Arms to take the necessary steps to remove a Member who refuses to leave the
Chamber after being ordered to withdraw. [364]
During debate in a Committee of a Whole, if a Member refuses to obey the warning of the Chairman to discontinue his or her
unparliamentary behaviour, the Chairman of the Committee may rise and report the conduct of the Member to the Speaker. The
Chairman may do this on his or her own initiative without recourse to a motion from the Committee. [365]
The Speaker will deal with the matter as if it had occurred in the House. [366]