A Member must be in his or her designated
place and must stand in order to be recognized and to speak. These stipulations
are a practical necessity in view of the difficulties involved in recognizing
Members if each Member were free to speak while seated in a different place
every time he or she addressed the House. The Speaker may exempt any Member
with a disability from these requirements on an ongoing basis. Otherwise,
individual exceptions to these two conditions have occurred, for example, when
a Member has been unable to rise as a result of an injury or illness.
When the Chair Occupant rises, a Member must sit down. 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. During proceedings pursuant to Standing Orders 38(5)
(Adjournment Proceedings), 52 (Emergency Debates) and 53.1 (Take‑note
Debates), Members are specifically exempted from the requirement to be in their
designated places in order to be recognized to speak.
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,
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 toward another Member and not the Speaker, he or she
will be called to order and may be asked to rephrase the remarks.
In a Committee of the Whole, Members must direct their comments to the Chair.
While the Standing Orders prescribe no
dress code for Members participating in debate,
Speakers have ruled that all Members desiring to be recognized at any point
during the proceedings of the House must be wearing contemporary business
Current practice requires that male Members wear jackets, shirts and ties.
Clerical collars have been allowed, although ascots and turtlenecks have been
ruled inappropriate for male Members participating in debate. The Chair has even
stated that wearing a kilt is permissible on certain occasions (for example,
Robert Burns Day).
Members of the House who are in the armed forces have been permitted to wear
their uniforms in the House.
Although there is no notation to this effect in the Journals or in the Debates,
a newly-elected Member introduced in the House in 2005 wore traditional Métis
dress (including a white hooded anorak bearing an embroidered seal emblem) on
that occasion without objection from the Chair.
In certain circumstances, usually for medical
reasons, the Chair has allowed a relaxation of the dress standards allowing,
for example, a Member whose arm was in a cast to wear a sweater in the House
instead of a jacket.
The Constitution Act, 1867
guarantees that a Member may address the House in either English or French.
Given the bilingual nature of the House and the existence of simultaneous
Members rarely have difficulty expressing their views and having them
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
and a Member will sometimes provide the Debates editor with a
translation of his or her remarks.
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.
Members have also used sign language to make statements and to ask questions
during Question Period.
Although not formally prohibited by a
Standing Order, the practice of reading from a written, prepared speech while
addressing the House was, until recent decades, frowned upon. Members have long
made use of notes when delivering a speech. The practice of discouraging the
reading of speeches is of British derivation, and was intended 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.
Although the tradition of not reading
speeches existed at Confederation, in 1886 the House adopted the following
… 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.
Notwithstanding this, the problem persisted
and several Speakers felt obliged to address it, during the decades that
followed, in statements and rulings discouraging the reading of speeches.
In 1956, Speaker Beaudoin received the consent of the House to have printed in
the Journals a statement on the issue in which he cited the authorities
on procedure (i.e., May, Bourinot, and Beauchesne and
various Speakers) and the practice of the House. His careful summary of
established practice in this regard remains definitive:
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.
As demands on the time and energy of
Members of Parliament continue to increase, their use of speaking notes, and
even of prepared texts, has become more common. The Chair has, accordingly,
shown a disinclination to insist that Members refrain from reading written
speeches. When points of order have been raised in this regard, Chairs have
typically ruled that it is permissible for Members to refer to notes.
It has long been accepted practice for the
Minister of Finance to make use of a lectern during the presentation of the
Budget. Before 2003, however, this convenience was unavailable to other
Members, although Chair Occupants made no objection to Members laying their
speaking notes on books. This changed in 2003, with the adoption by the House
of a committee report recommending that portable lecterns be made available to
all Members upon request.
There is no Standing Order which governs
the citation of documents; the House is guided mainly by custom and precedent.
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
do not refer to or comment on or deny anything said by a Member,
or use language which would be out of order if spoken by a Member.
A speech should not consist of a single
long quotation or a series of quotations joined together with a few original
Members may not quote from the “blues” (the unedited preliminary version of the
Debates) nor may they quote from correspondence when there is no way of
confirming the authenticity of the signature.
They may quote from private correspondence as long as they identify the sender
by name or take full responsibility for its contents. Finally, Members
may not quote from the proceedings of a committee before it has reported to the
Any document quoted by a Minister in debate
or in response to a question during Question Period must be tabled upon
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 this can be done without prejudice to the public
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.
A public document referred to but not
quoted by a Minister need not be tabled.
If a Minister quotes a private letter in debate, the letter becomes a public
document and must be tabled on request.
However, a Minister is not obliged to table personal or briefing notes referred
to during debate or Question Period.
Although it is customary to do so under the rubric “Tabling of Documents”, a
Minister is at liberty to table at any time without any requirement for
All documents tabled in the House by a Minister are required to be in both
There has been a long‑standing
practice in the House that private Members may not table documents, official or
Speaker Lamoureux observed that while Ministers must table official documents
cited in debate in support of an argument, this rule has never been interpreted
to apply to any documents 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”.
However, since the mid‑1980s, Members have been allowed 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. These documents
(often copies of correspondence or advertisements) have typically been tabled
in only one language.
Private Members sometimes place material for the information of all Members on
the Table, although this is not considered an official tabling.
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 the Debates.
Very rarely, 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
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.
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.
Exhibits have also been ruled inadmissible.
During the “Flag Debate” in 1964, the Speaker had to remind Members on numerous
occasions that the display of competing flag designs was not permissible.
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
While political buttons and lapel pins have not been considered exhibits as
long as they do not cause disorder,
the Speaker has interrupted a division to request that certain Members remove
“props” from their lapels.
A Member’s first speech in the House is
referred to as his or her “maiden speech”. Traditionally, the House extends
certain 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. The Member is
permitted to read his or her speech
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. 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.
Standing Order 17. See, for example, Debates,
November 9, 2006, pp. 4953-4. Members have been permitted to speak
from a place other than their own by consent of the House. See, for example, Debates,
April 9, 1962, p. 2629.
Standing Order 1.1.
See, for example, Debates, November 24, 1992, p. 13977;
January 24, 1994, pp. 215, 218; February 2, 1998, p. 3181;
October 21, 1998, p. 9229; October 11, 2002, p. 623.
See, for example, Debates, February 24, 1993, p. 16404; June
16, 2005, p. 7357.
Standing Order 17.
Franks, p. 124.
See, for example, Debates, April 18, 1996, pp. 1628‑9;
March 19, 1998, p. 5115; February 7, 2007, p. 6540.
See, for example, Debates, April 10, 2006, p. 306.
Until 1994, the Standing Orders did contain one rule respecting a dress
code: when participating in any proceedings, Members were required to rise
“uncovered”, that is, to remove their hats. The Speaker allowed Members to wear
hats as long as they removed the head gear before rising to speak. See Debates,
March 17, 1971, p. 4338; June 20, 1983, pp. 26564‑6;
June 3, 1992, pp. 11348‑9. However, since Members are no
longer in the habit of wearing hats in the Chamber, this aspect of the Standing
Order had become anachronistic and was finally deleted in June 1994. See
the Twenty‑Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs (Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 9, 1994,
Issue No. 16, p. 3), presented to the House on June 8, 1994 (Journals,
p. 545), and concurred in on June 10, 1994 (Journals,
See, for example, Debates, December 10, 1981, pp. 13920‑1;
September 12, 1983, pp. 26977‑8; August 10, 1988,
p. 18176; August 11, 1988, pp. 18208‑9; April 5,
1990, p. 10206; June 3, 1992, pp. 11348‑9;
November 20, 1992, p. 13745; April 19, 1996, p. 1703;
February 28, 2001, p. 1331.
See Debates, February 19, 1990, pp. 8485‑6; May 3,
1990, pp. 10941‑2; June 14, 2002, p. 12703. On
occasion, male Members not wearing a tie have been permitted to vote. See Debates,
March 31, 1987, pp. 4726‑7; April 5, 1990, p. 10206.
Debates, January 25, 1985, pp. 1685‑6.
Debates, February 4, 1943, p. 162.
Journals, June 6, 2005, p. 834.
See, for example, Debates, April 5, 1990, pp. 10242‑3; February
15, 2000, p. 3527. On one occasion, the Speaker allowed a Member rising on a
point of order to propose a motion for a relaxation of the dress code pending
repair of the Chamber’s air-conditioning system. The motion was adopted (Debates,
May 29, 2002, p. 11884).
R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 133. The Constitution Act,
1982 also affirms that the English and French languages enjoy “equality of
status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of
the Parliament and government of Canada” (s. 16(1)) and that everyone has
the “right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of
Parliament” (s. 17(1)). The only references to language requirements in
the Standing Orders are found in Standing Orders 7(2), 32(4) and 65. Standing
Order 7(2) specifies that the Deputy Speaker must have a full and practical
knowledge of the official language which is not that of the Speaker. Standing
Order 32(4) requires that documents distributed or tabled in the House be in
both official languages. Standing Order 65 requires motions that are seconded
to be read in English and French. See also Debates, November 25,
1998, pp. 10432‑3.
In 1958, the House agreed to the installation in the Chamber of a system for
simultaneous interpretation in both official languages (Journals,
August 11, 1958, p. 402, Debates, pp. 3331‑40). On
occasion, there have been minor technical problems with the simultaneous
interpretation system, but debate has not been unduly hampered because of this
inconvenience to Members. See, for example, Debates, November 1,
1994, p. 7473; March 23, 1999, p. 13311; April 29,
1999, p. 14503; October 16, 2006, p. 3789; October 25, 2006,
p. 4232; November 1, 2007, p. 660.
On one occasion, a Member rose on a point of order to complain about another
Member who had spoken in Inuktitut. The Chair responded that there was no rule
preventing a Member from using a language other than French or English (Debates,
June 12, 1995, p. 13605). See Debates, June 13, 1995,
p. 13702, where the Speaker requested that a Member who had made a speech
in Inuktitut consider answering questions in one of the two official languages.
The Member complied. Other languages which have been used in debate include
Dene‑North Slavey (Debates, October 21, 1991, pp. 3699,
3702), Punjabi (Debates, November 19, 1991, p. 5067), Japanese
(Debates, June 9, 1998, p. 7806), Ojibway (Debates,
November 5, 1998, p. 9893), Salishan (Debates,
November 5, 1998, p. 9893), Cree (Debates, June 19, 2006, p.
2585), Chinese (Debates, June 22, 2006, p. 2863) and Italian (Debates,
May 6, 2008, pp. 5490‑1). On one occasion, there was an
exchange between two Members in Latin and Greek (Debates,
February 18, 1983, p. 22983).
See, for example, Debates, June 4, 1993, pp. 20356‑61; June 13,
1995, p. 13700; March 18, 1998, p. 5041; March 24,
1998, p. 5278; June 9, 1998, p. 7806; May 6, 2008,
Debates, December 8, 1964, p. 10926.
See, for example, Debates, May 13, 1998, pp. 6918‑9;
May 6, 1999, p. 14381; May 30, 2001, p. 4405.
The most notable exception to this practice is when the Minister of Finance is
presenting a Budget.
May, T.E., Erskine May’s Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and
Usage of Parliament, 23rd ed., edited by Sir W. McKay, London: LexisNexis UK, 2004, p. 425. See also Bourinot, 4th ed.,
p. 335. In 1947, Speaker Fauteux noted: “If the rule were otherwise
members might read speeches written by other people and the time of the house
[would] be taken up considering the arguments of persons who are not properly
elected representatives of the people.” Debates, May 29, 1947,
Journals, April 19, 1886, pp. 167‑8.
See, for example, Debates, June 14, 1940, p. 781;
February 20, 1942, pp. 730‑1; September 11, 1945,
p. 66; May 29, 1947, pp. 3567‑8; February 20, 1951,
pp. 496‑7; May 29, 1951, pp. 3494‑5.
Journals, January 31, 1956, pp. 92‑102, in particular
See, for example, Debates, September 21, 1983, p. 27358;
November 20, 1990, p. 15456; June 18, 1991, p. 1931;
May 22, 1992, p. 11117; December 9, 1992, p. 14934;
March 30, 2000, p. 5499.
Fourth Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of
the Procedures of the House of Commons, par. 36, presented to the House on
June 12, 2003 (Debates, p. 915), and concurred in on
September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995).
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 336. See Journals, June 21,
1960, p. 675.
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 336. See, for example, Debates, October
22, 2002, p. 719.
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 336. See, for example, Debates,
February 25, 1998, p. 4407; April 22, 1999, p. 14202;
November 8, 2006, p. 4895.
See, for example, Debates, July 23, 1963, p. 2549; October 22,
2002, p. 772.
See, for example, Debates, May 31, 1928, p. 3604.
See, for example, Debates, May 16, 1928, p. 3073; May 14,
1973, pp. 3725‑7; April 9, 1976, pp. 12682‑3;
February 14, 1984, pp. 1361‑3; June 6, 2006, p. 2030; October
18, 2007, p. 70. See also Debates, February 1, 1954,
pp. 1644‑5, 1647‑8 where the Speaker defines an unsigned or
See, for example, Debates, April 14, 1943, p. 2179;
September 29, 1994, p. 6314; December 4, 2001,
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 337; Beauchesne, 4th ed.,
pp. 134‑5. See, for example, Debates, November 5, 1997,
pp. 1582‑3, 1586; February 6, 1998, pp. 3499‑500;
February 23, 1998, p. 4289; April 29, 1998, p. 6293;
February 18, 2004, p. 784; October 2, 2006, pp. 3497, 3499. For
further information on the tabling of documents required by statute or in
respect to administrative responsibilities by Ministers during Routine
Proceedings under the rubric “Tabling of Documents”, see Chapter 10, “The
Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 134. See also Debates,
November 2, 1983, pp. 28627‑31;
October 17, 1995, p. 15488; June 8, 2006,
Journals, March 7, 1941, pp. 171‑2.
See, for example, Journals, November 16, 1971, p. 922; Debates,
March 4, 1975, p. 3755; February 11, 1983, p. 22755;
November 14, 1984, pp. 219‑20; February 4, 1992,
p. 6376; February 1, 2001, pp. 112-3; October 2, 2006, p. 3496.
Journals, February 22, 1972, p. 15.
See, for example, Debates, October 13, 1987, pp. 9898‑9;
March 12, 2001, p. 1526.
Speaker Milliken reminded Ministers that while they were at liberty to table
documents at any time, they ought not to use such occasions to make statements
(Debates, March 20, 2001, pp. 1960-1). See also Debates,
May 4, 2005, pp. 5657-8.
Standing Order 32(4). There have been occasions when a document has been tabled
in only one language. See, for example, Journals,
March 17, 1998, p. 574; March 16, 1999, p. 1618. On
one occasion, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader sought
unanimous consent to table a newspaper article which was quoted by a Minister
and which was available in English only. Consent was given (Debates,
February 19, 1998, p. 4125). Since 2000, Ministers and Parliamentary
Secretaries have, on occasion, tabled unilingual items of correspondence
without first seeking unanimous consent. See, for example, Journals,
October 26, 2006, p. 587, Debates, p. 4307.
Journals, April 6, 1971, pp. 475‑6. For cases where the
Speaker has refused requests by private Members for unanimous consent to table
a document, see Debates, February 1, 1985, p. 1914;
February 13, 1985, p. 2313; March 25, 1985, pp. 3326‑7;
September 23, 1985, p. 6864; June 27, 1986, p. 15006. In
recent years, this prohibition has been relaxed, and Speakers have permitted
the House to pronounce itself on such requests. See, for example, Debates,
June 8, 2006, p. 2107; December 6, 2006, p. 5698.
Debates, December 3, 1974, p. 1882.
This was first allowed by the Chair on November 15, 1978 (Debates,
pp. 1160‑1), and discouraged (but not forbidden) in the years that
followed. In 1986, Speaker Fraser, noting that “the House has quite clearly
decided to move outside the usual practice”, declined to discourage the
practice further (Debates, October 24, 1986, pp. 709‑10).
The two decades that followed saw numerous instances of tabling by unanimous
consent (see, for example, Debates, December 5, 1990, p. 16330;
November 30, 1992, p. 14276; February 1, 1994, p. 690;
October 17, 1995, p. 15488; October 2, 1997, p. 415;
December 4, 1997, pp. 2706‑7; February 13, 1998,
p. 3866; March 17, 1998, p. 5029; November 24, 1998,
p. 10388; February 16, 1999, p. 11980; October 28, 2003, p.
8835; November 25, 2004, p. 1926; October 27, 2006, p. 4358). On
one such occasion, a document was tabled which had already been tabled by a
Minister earlier in the day. Each tabled copy of the document was assigned a sessional
paper number (Journals, June 1, 2006, p. 223). Also in 2006, a Member obtained unanimous consent to table an audio recording on a tape recorder (Debates,
October 5, 2006, p. 3720). In 2007, a Secretary of State declared himself willing to table a printout from a handheld electronic
“BlackBerry”, but not the device itself (Debates, October 18, 2007,
See, for example, Journals, December 5, 1990, p. 2379;
November 30, 1992, p. 2254; February 1, 1994, p. 88;
March 16, 1994, p. 260; March 20, 1997, p. 1325; October 2, 1997,
p. 70; February 16, 1999, p. 1514; March 11, 1999,
p. 1596; June 21, 2005, p. 942; May 9, 2006, p. 151.
See, for example, Debates, June 13, 1991, p. 1646. See also
the Chair’s comments, Debates, February 24, 1992, p. 7531. In
1992, the House adopted a Special Order allowing Members to table documents as
sessional papers during a debate on proposals for reform of the constitution (Journals,
February 5, 1992, p. 975).
See, for example, Debates, June 3, 1971, p. 6359;
December 3, 1990, p. 16085. This prohibition has, on rare occasions,
been waived by unanimous consent. See, for example, Debates, June 11,
1992, p. 11887.
Debates, December 8, 1997, pp. 2851‑2. Consent is also
sometimes granted for lengthy answers to “starred” questions (i.e., questions
for which oral answers have been requested) on the Order Paper to be
printed in the Debates as if read. See, for example, Debates,
March 10, 2005, p. 4236.
See, for example, Debates, February 8, 1994, pp. 1030, 1095;
March 25, 1994, pp. 2812, 2821‑2. The Speaker has refused to
ask the House for unanimous consent to include as an appendix to the Debates,
the text of a speech given outside the House (Debates,
April 2, 1981, p. 8876). Nonetheless, the House has agreed to
append to the Debates speeches made by the Prime Minister and the
Governor General in the Senate at the installation of the latter (Debates,
February 8, 1995, pp. 9334, 9367‑70; September 27, 2005,
pp. 8132, 8136), remarks made by the Governor General at the funeral
service of a former Member (Debates, January 20, 1994,
pp. 112, 133‑5), and speeches delivered at the unveiling of the
official portrait of a former Prime Minister (Debates, November 20,
2002, p. 1664).
See, for example, Debates, March 30, 2000, p. 5443.
See, for example, Debates, February 11, 1986, p. 10687;
February 9, 1993, p. 15637; March 23, 1994, pp. 2671, 2674;
December 8, 1995, p. 17444; May 7, 1999, p. 14886. Examples
of printed material used as a prop and ruled out of order include
advertisements, newspapers, books, business cards and money (Debates,
April 26, 1989, pp. 994‑5; March 14, 1990, p. 9277;
March 6, 1991, p. 18111; May 25, 1993, p. 19679;
November 1, 1994, p. 7497; April 24, 1996, p. 1889;
April 18, 2005, pp. 5213-4). Speaker Milliken ruled that “a document that has
been recently tabled in the House and is being quoted by Members or used as the
basis for either an answer or a question may sometimes be lifted up, pointed at
or even quoted from” (Debates, November 4, 2005, pp. 9531-2).
These include produce, samples of grain, detergent boxes, boxes of letters and
petitions, a wig, a pen, a toy and chocolates (see, for example, Debates,
June 16, 1969, p. 10156; October 29, 1969, p. 237;
June 10, 1980, p. 1967; June 2, 1982, p. 18022;
February 15, 1985, pp. 2387, 2404; May 5, 1987, p. 5763;
March 13, 1995, p. 10383; March 5, 1997, p. 8649;
November 18, 1997, p. 1846; June 13, 2006, p. 2321). On one
occasion, a petition in the form of a birthday card was deemed an exhibit and
ordered removed from the Chamber (Debates,
July 5, 1982, p. 18990). On another occasion, a Member held up a
sign when the Minister of Finance was making a statement and was subsequently
ordered suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the day’s
sitting (Debates, June 27, 1985, p. 6270).
See Debates, May 12, 1964, p. 3165; June 12, 1964,
p. 4237; June 16, 1964, pp. 4352‑3; August 17, 1964,
See, for example, Debates, December 14, 1994, p. 9057. On
February 26, 1998, some Members used desk flags to demonstrate their
opposition to certain remarks previously made by Suzanne Tremblay
(Rimouski–Mitis). The Chair found that such use of the flag created disorder in
the House and asked Members that the flags be put back in their desks (Debates,
p. 4488). When Mrs. Tremblay was recognized later in the sitting, Members
began singing the national anthem (Debates, p. 4503). A point of
order was raised (Debates, pp. 4509‑12) and, in his
subsequent ruling, Speaker Parent underlined that the ruling was not about the
flag or the national anthem. It was about “order and decorum and the duty of
the Speaker to apply the rules and practices of the House”. The Speaker
concluded that, until the House decided otherwise, no such displays would be
allowed (Debates, March 16, 1998, pp. 4902‑3).
See, for example, Debates, December 10, 1984, p. 1064;
October 18, 1995, pp. 15537‑8. In 2006, a Member was asked to remove a political button when another Member objected to it (Debates,
September 21, 2006, p. 3064).
Debates, June 22, 1995, pp. 14465‑6. See also Debates,
September 18, 1995, p. 14508; October 2, 1995, pp. 15108‑9.
Beauchesne, A., Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada,
3rd ed., Toronto: Canada Law Book Company, Limited, 1943, pp. 91‑2.
See the section in this chapter entitled “Reading of Speeches”.
On one occasion, the Speaker interrupted a Member during her maiden speech in
an attempt to quell heckling (Debates, January 30, 2001, pp. 18-9).
See, for example, Debates, February 25, 1994, p. 1882;
April 14, 1994, p. 3027.
See, for example, Debates, September 25, 1997, pp. 69‑71;
September 26, 1997, pp. 164‑6; April 6, 2006, p. 66.