House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 Edition — More information …

13. Rules of Order and Decorum

[1] 
Franks, pp. 124-5.
[2]
Freedom of speech permits Members to speak in the House (and in its committees) without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, and to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents without fear of legal prosecution. For further information on freedom of speech, see Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities.”.
[3] 
Standing Orders 10 and 11. See also Chapter 7, “The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House”.
[4]
There are also some procedures where no motion is proposed to the House and Members may be recognized by the Speaker to speak (e.g., Statements by Members, Question Period, Routine Proceedings (including Statements by Ministers), and on questions of privilege). During the Adjournment Proceedings, only those Members who were notified earlier in the sitting and the Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries responding on their behalf are recognized to speak. For information on debatable and non-debatable motions, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
[5] 
Standing Orders 17 and 62.
[6] 
As noted in Wilding and Laundy, p. 81: “Up to 1625, when several members stood up, the House itself had decided whom they wanted to hear, but in that year the House resolved that ‘if two rise up at once, the Speaker does determine. He that his eye saw first, has the precedence given.’”
[7] 
See comments of the Chair, Debates, May 5, 1994, p. 3925; November 29, 1994, pp. 8406-7.
[8] 
Chair occupants have ruled on numerous occasions that priority of speaking is given to a Minister when a Minister rises at the same time as a Member to be recognized (see, for example, Debates, May 16, 1984, p. 3784; April 15, 1987, pp. 5191, 5201; December 19, 1990, p. 16954). See also Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 334. In addition, Beauchesne (4th ed.) states: “By old parliamentary usage, a member who wishes to make his maiden speech enjoys the privilege of being first seen by the Speaker, if he rises at the same time as other members…” (p. 111).
[9] 
Standing Order 43 stipulates that the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister moving a government order and the Member speaking in reply immediately after the Minister may speak for more than 20 minutes in any debate. In response to a point of order raised by an independent Member who had sat in the House for many years as a Member of a recognized party, the Speaker ruled that length of service in the House is not a criterion for recognition (Debates, February 22, 1993, p. 16283).
[10] 
This has been supported by numerous Speaker’s rulings (see, for example, Debates, October 27, 1970, p. 635; January 27, 1983, p. 22303; May 20, 1986, p. 13443).
[11] 
See, for example, Debates, May 17, 1991, pp. 291-2; September 8, 1992, p. 12723.
[12] 
See, for example, Journals, June 11, 1991, p. 164; June 18, 1991, p. 217; September 17, 1992, pp. 2011-2.
[13] 
Debates, March 19, 1992, pp. 8479-80, 8490-1.
[14]
During the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, it is traditional for the seconder to be recognized to speak after the mover has spoken. See Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
[15]
For a definition of a recognized party for procedural purposes, see Chapter 1, “Parliamentary Institutions”.
[16] 
Standing Order 44(2). The right of reply is discussed in detail later in this chapter.
[17] 
See, for example, Debates, February 22, 1993, pp. 16282-3; March 14, 1995, p. 10446.
[18]
For additional information, see Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[19] 
Standing Order 43(1). The House adopted this provision in 1982 (Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400).
[20] 
See, for example, Debates, May 22, 1992, p. 11108; February 20, 1995, p. 9851; June 9, 1998, p. 7842; November 5, 1998, p. 9925.
[21] 
See, for example, Debates, October 28, 1985, p. 8075; February 11, 1986, p. 10688; March 3, 1986, p. 11126.
[22] 
See, for example, Debates, March 14, 1985, p. 3029. See also Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
[23] 
See, for example, Debates, June 9, 1986, p. 14128.
[24] 
See, for example, Debates, February 17, 1987, p. 3541.
[25] 
Standing Order 62. This motion has been used as a dilatory tactic (see, for example, Debates, February 3, 1987, pp. 3086-7; October 3, 1990, pp. 13755-7, 13761-2). On one occasion, when the Speaker had recognized a Member on a question of privilege, another Member rose on a point of order to move this motion. The Speaker did not accept the motion “that a Member be now heard” because such a motion is traditionally moved during the course of a debate, and a question of privilege has precedence over any other matter. See Debates, April 27, 1989, p. 1003.
[26] 
See, for example, Debates, June 18, 1987, p. 7305; January 26, 1990, pp. 7528-9; May 12, 1995, p. 12528. On one occasion, after a motion for second reading of a bill had been proposed to the House, a Member moved that a specific Member “be now heard”. The Speaker would not allow the motion to be put because only the mover of the motion could be recognized at that time (Debates, November 20, 1986, p. 1368).
[27] 
See, for example, Debates, October 28, 1987, p. 10497; March 19, 1997, pp. 9227-9.
[28] 
See, for example, Debates, January 26, 1990, pp. 7528-9; November 20, 1997, pp. 6503-5.
[29] 
See, for example, Debates, October 28, 1987, p. 10497.
[30] 
See, for example, Debates, January 31, 1990, p. 7660. There are instances, however, when the Chair has accepted such motions during Routine Proceedings when no motion was under debate (Journals, November 7, 1986, pp. 188-9; April 8, 1987, pp. 722-3).
[31] 
See, for example, Debates, November 7, 1986, p. 1191.
[32] 
See, for example, Debates, January 31, 1990, p. 7661; September 24, 1990, pp. 13244-5.
[33] 
See, for example, Debates, December 5, 1963, p. 5471.
[34] 
See, for example, Debates, October 30, 1991, p. 4231.
[35] 
See, for example, Debates, June 19, 1991, p. 2109. In 1979, after the leaders of the three recognized parties had spoken on an opposition motion, Speaker Jerome explained his reasons for recognizing next in debate, Fabien Roy, the leader of the Social Credit Party, which held only five seats in the House. As Fabien Roy, began to speak, Yvon Pinard (Drummond) rose on a point of order to move that another Member “be now heard”. The Speaker ruled that the Member did not have the floor to move his motion. The following day, in response to a question of privilege, Speaker Jerome clarified that he had interpreted the moving of the motion to be an appeal against the ruling he had just given. See Debates, November 6, 1979, pp. 1008-10; November 7, 1979, pp. 1048-9.
[36] 
For example, when a Member’s speech is interrupted because of Statements by Members and Question Period, or when the debate is interrupted because of Private Members’ Business or the ordinary hour of adjournment. See Debates, March 17, 1997, pp. 9091-2, when a Member rose to complain that he was being denied the right to continue his speech because the government called a different Order after Question Period.
[37] 
See, for example, Debates, May 25, 1990, p. 11910; May 29, 1990, p. 12011; April 6, 1992, pp. 9359-60; September 29, 1994, p. 6348; September 22, 1995, p. 14759.
[38] 
See, for example, Debates, December 18, 1990, p. 16906.
[39] 
See, for example, Debates, October 28, 1985, pp. 8075-6; December 11, 1986, pp. 2025-6; February 3, 1994, p. 896; February 27, 1995, p. 10084; February 17, 1998, p. 4033.
[40] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 353.
[41] 
Debates, December 17, 1990, pp. 16829-30.
[42] 
See, for example, Debates, June 15, 1994, pp. 5364-5; November 24, 1994, pp. 8255-7; March 11, 1999, pp. 12775-6.
[43] 
See, for example, Debates, March 20, 1990, pp. 9557-8.
[44] 
See, for example, Debates, June 22, 1988, p. 16729; February 24, 1992, p. 7546; March 19, 1992, p. 8522; February 24, 1993, p. 16425.
[45] 
See, for example, Debates, June 16, 1994, p. 5403; June 21, 1994, p. 5665; November 1, 1994, p. 7539.
[46] 
See, for example, Debates, October 18, 1994, p. 6883; December 15, 1994, p. 9104.
[47] 
See, for example, Debates, February 1, 1994, p. 751; December 9, 1997, p. 3011.
[48] 
See, for example, Debates, May 4, 1993, p. 18921.
[49] 
Standing Order 44(1). “It is essential to the dispatch of business, that the rule and order of the House, ‘That no Member should speak twice to the same question’, should be strictly adhered to; and it is the duty of the Speaker to maintain the observance of this rule, without waiting for the interposition of the House; which, in calling to order, seldom produces any thing but disorder” (Hatsell, Vol. II, p. 105).
[50] 
See, for example, Debates, March 16, 1993, pp. 17091-2; February 3, 1998, p. 3288; May 12, 1998, p. 6826; May 25, 1998, p. 7107. In a Committee of the Whole, Members may speak as often as they wish (Standing Order 101(1)).

Please note —

As the rules and practices of the House of Commons are subject to change, users should remember that this edition of Procedure and Practice was published in January 2000. Standing Order changes adopted since then, as well as other changes in practice, are not reflected in the text. The Appendices to the book, however, have been updated and now include information up to the end of the 38th Parliament in November 2005.

To confirm current rules and practice, please consult the latest version of the Standing Orders on the Parliament of Canada Web site.

For further information about the procedures of the House of Commons, please contact the Table Research Branch at (613) 996-3611 or by e-mail at trbdrb@parl.gc.ca.