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

[151]: See, for example, Debates, June 1, 1956, pp. 4537-39; Journals, June 4, 1956, pp. 692-3; June 8, 1956, pp. 725-6; Debates, March 13, 1964, p. 916; Journals, March 18, 1964, pp. 103-4; March 19, 1964, pp. 106-7; Debates, March 9, 1993, p. 16685. For further information on motions of censure against the Speaker, see Chapter 7, “The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House”.
[152]: In 1981, the Leader of the Opposition made remarks which constituted an attack on the authority and impartiality of the Speaker. The following day, a Minister raised a question of privilege on the matter. The Leader of the Opposition subsequently withdrew his remarks and the matter was closed (Debates, January 21, 1981, p. 6410; January 22, 1981, pp. 6455-7). In 1993, a prima facie breach of privilege was found when a Member refused to withdraw disparaging remarks about a Chair occupant (Journals, March 23, 1993, p. 2688; Debates, pp. 17403-5). Two days later, the Member apologized and the matter was closed (Debates, March 25, 1993, p. 17537). See also Debates, May 14, 1996, p. 2721.
[153]: Standing Order 18. For examples of disrespectful references to the Governor General, see Debates, May 23, 1958, p. 406; March 12, 1959, p. 1869; September 27, 1990, pp. 13509, 13513; February 24, 1994, pp. 1799-1800. Discourteous references to Lieutenant-Governors have also been ruled out of order (see, for example, Debates, June 20, 1958, p. 1462; March 12, 1959, p. 1870).
[154]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 338-9. See, for example, Debates, March 9, 1910, cols. 5100-1.
[155]: May, 22^nd ed., p. 382.
[156]: Beauchesne, 4^th ed., pp. 128-9; 6^th ed., pp. 150-1;. See, for example, Debates, May 16, 1986, p. 13353; September 19, 1991, p. 2401; November 28, 1996, p. 6854; June 8, 1998, pp. 7680, 7691; June 9, 1998, p. 7835. However, Members are not prohibited from giving notice of a substantive motion concerning the conduct of a judge (Debates, February 18, 1926, p. 1106).
[157]: Debates, April 1, 1998, pp. 5653-4. See also Debates, April 2, 1998, p. 5743.
[158]: See, for example, Debates, December 1, 1986, p. 1636; June 4, 1998, p. 7575.
[159]: See, for example, Debates, May 26, 1987, pp. 6375-6; November 28, 1991, pp. 5509-10; see also Debates, December 21, 1984, p. 1447.
[160]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 357. It is also irregular to refer to discussions held in a Committee of the Whole.
[161]: See, for example, Debates, December 4, 1984, p. 896. In practice, this rule is often disregarded by the Chair.
[162]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 358.
[163]: Beauchesne, 6^th ed., p. 141.
[164]: Standing Order 18.
[165]: May, 22^nd ed., p. 380.
[166]: See, for example, Journals, June 1, 1955, pp. 654-7, in particular p. 656; Debates, May 19, 1960, p. 4025; October 20, 1970, p. 402; May 11, 1983, pp. 25363-6; November 3, 1983, p. 28661; May 4, 1993, p. 18921; May 14, 1993, pp. 19470-1; April 6, 1995, pp. 11608, 11612; September 24, 1996, p. 4656; May 7, 1998, p. 6690; May 11, 1999, p. 15001.
[167]: Standing Order 18. This topic is also discussed in Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
[168]: Standing Order 18. See, for example, Debates, February 25, 1998, pp. 4401-2; October 28, 1998, p. 9512 .
[169]: See Speaker Michener’s ruling,Journals, June 19, 1959, pp. 581-6; see also Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, December 11, 1991, pp. 6141-2.
[170]: Standing Order 47.
[171]: See, for example, Debates, March 24, 1993, p. 17482; October 22, 1997, p. 964.
[172]: See, for example, Debates, March 24, 1993, pp. 17486-8; October 22, 1997, pp. 971-2; April 22, 1999, pp. 14225, 14229.
[173]: See, for example, Debates, March 26, 1986, p. 11899; June 13, 1986, pp. 14370-2; March 5, 1987, p. 3882; December 9, 1997, p. 3018.
[174]: See, for example, Debates, February 5, 1997, pp. 7716-7; February 17, 1999, pp. 12000-1.
[175]: Debates, December 12, 1991, pp. 6218-9. See also Debates, February 10, 1998, pp. 3714-5, when a Member accused another Member of an obscene gesture. The Speaker indicated that it would be difficult to check because the gesture would not be recorded and he did not see it. He cautioned Members to refrain from making gestures which are offensive to other Members.
[176]: See Speaker Parent’s remarks, Debates, February 17, 1997, pp. 8200-1; September 25, 1997, pp. 103-4; September 30, 1997, p. 256; June 8, 1998, p. 7707; October 7, 1998, p. 8885; November 5, 1998, pp. 9917-8; March 18, 1999, pp. 13092-3.
[177]: Lists of terms ruled unparliamentary have been included in the index to the Debates in Bourinot(4^th ed., pp. 361-4) and in Beauchesne (6^th ed., pp. 142-50).
[178]: See, for example, Debates, November 4, 1987, p. 10741; November 18, 1987, pp. 10927-8; December 14, 1987, pp. 11761-2; October 26, 1998, p. 9379; February 18, 1999, p. 12094.
[179]: See, for example, Debates, September 18, 1991, pp. 2299-300; October 9, 1991, p. 3515; September 25, 1998, p. 8401; October 30, 1998, p. 9641; February 16, 1999, pp. 11972-3; March 25, 1999, pp. 13483-4.
[180]: On one occasion, when Jim Fulton (Skeena) refused to retract his remarks, Speaker Fraser chose not to recognize the Member until a withdrawal was made three weeks later (Debates, October 29, 1987, pp. 10542-3; October 30, 1987, pp. 10583-4; November 18, 1987, pp. 10927-8).
[181]: See, for example, Debates, February 12, 1997, pp. 8016-7; October 1, 1997, pp. 332, 334-5; October 2, 1997, p. 367; December 1, 1998, pp. 10726-7, 10730-1. See also section below, “Naming”.
[182]: See, for example, Debates, September 17, 1991, pp. 2235-6, 2261-3; September 18, 1991, pp. 2299-300; September 23, 1991, pp. 2522-3; October 9, 1991, pp. 3515-6; October 10, 1991, pp. 3560-4.
[183]: See Journals, October 23, 1991, pp. 521-2; October 25, 1991, pp. 535-6; November 21, 1991, pp. 703-4.
[184]: Standing Order 11(2).
[185]: Dawson highlighted the difficulty in enforcing this rule by noting that, “the whole system of procedure is based on an assumption of repetition” and referred to three readings given to a bill (p. 108).
[186]: Bourinot, 1^st ed., p. 349. See also the Chair’s remarks, Debates, June 17, 1992, p. 12297; June 23, 1992, p. 12641.
[187]: Standing Order 11(2). For examples where the Speaker has directed a Member to discontinue his speech, see Debates, May 26, 1947, pp. 3450-1; August 25, 1958, p. 4073. If a Member persists in breaching the repetition or irrelevance rule in a Committee of the Whole, he or she is reported to the House by the Chairman if the committee so directs. For additional information, see Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[188]: Vernon F. Snow, Parliament in Elizabethan England: John Hooker’s Order and Usage, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977, p. 169.
[189]: Hatsell, Vol. II, p. 232.
[190]: Hatsell, Vol. II, p. 230.
[191]: The entry in the Journals reads: “ … if any superfluous motion, or tedious speech be offered in the House, the party is to be directed and ordered by Mr. Speaker”. See Hatsell, Vol. II, p. 230.
[192]: P.D.G. Thomas, The House of Commons in the Eighteenth Century, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971, pp. 217-8.
[193]: Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings of the House of Commons of Canada, 1876, Rule No. 13.
[194]: Rules of the House of Commons of Canada, 1910, Rule No. 19.
[195]: Debates, April 29, 1910, col. 8377.
[196]: Rules of the House of Commons of Canada, 1910, Rule No. 13(5).
[197]: Debates, March 18, 1927, p. 1351.
[198]: In more blatant cases, the Speaker has been able to cite the date and page where the same speech has been given previously. In one instance, the Speaker was able to predict that the Member was about to begin paragraph six of his speech and, in another, the Speaker cited five instances in which the same appeal was made (Debates, June 9, 1955, p. 4610; April 19, 1956, p. 3073). On another occasion when a Member stated that he was going to repeat some of the material he had previously used in the same debate, the Speaker would not allow the Member to proceed (Debates, February 17, 1956, p. 1290). See also Speaker Beaudoin’s remarks, Debates, May 24, 1955, p. 4065.
[199]: See, for example, Debates, June 9, 1955, p. 4609. On one occasion, a Member was chided because his remarks were “not much more than a repetition of what has been said by others who preceded him.” Consequently, the Member was directed to shorten his remarks so that the House could “get down to the work properly before [it].” See Debates, August 31, 1917, p. 5237.
[200]: See, for example, Debates, May 24, 1955, p. 4065.