Rules of Debate / Decorum

Member's attire: practice

May 3, 1990

Debates, pp. 10941-2

On February 15, 1990, the Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport) was not recognized for debate when the House was considering a Government motion on language rights because, according to the Acting Speaker (Hon. Steven Paproski), he was not properly dressed.^[1] On February 19, Mr. Caccia rose on a question of privilege regarding the incident. He claimed that he had been denied the opportunity to participate in debate. He further claimed that because he was not recognized at that time the debate collapsed and the question on the motion was put to the House and agreed to. Other Members wanting to take part in the debate thus missed the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Caccia queried whether the parliamentary institution was well served when dress seemed more important than debate. He asserted that women in the Chamber could dress in a variety of ways according to fashion and he questioned whether the same flexibility could not be extended to men. He asked the Speaker to consider referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and also to provide the House with a ruling for guidance until the Committee had reported.

The Speaker stated the matter had been raised a number of times before. He indicated his concern that because of his dress, the Member could not enter into a debate which was about to collapse. He reserved on the ruling and indicated he would report back to the House and to the Member as soon as it was appropriate.^[2]

On May 3, 1990, the Speaker delivered his ruling which is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: On Monday, February 19, the honourable Member for Davenport raised a question of privilege because he had not been recognized in debate the previous Thursday, February 15, when the House was considering the motion of the Government on language rights. At the time, the Acting Speaker declined to recognize the honourable Member for Davenport because he was not properly dressed.

The honourable Member has asked the Chair to reconsider its reliance on the traditional interpretation of the practice of the House that required male Members be dressed with jacket and tie. In making his case, the honourable Member pointed to the latitude accorded women Members who can dress, as he put it, "in a variety of ways according to fashions and changing trends".

The honourable Member also quoted the Deputy Speaker who, last December 14, referred to Beauchesne and the practice that Members are expected to respect in terms of their appearance.^[3] The honourable Member stressed, however, that this is a practice and not a rule. This is certainly true, but it is a practice that is well established.

Exceptions have been allowed from time to time, but always within the context of the accepted practice. Clergymen Members have requested the right to wear their distinctive collar instead of a tie and Members who have sustained an injury have asked to be excused from the wearing of a jacket or a tie for short periods of time when it was not possible because of the injury. In this connection I would point to the recent cases involving the honourable Members for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte (Mr. Brian Tobin) and for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Pierre Vincent).^[4]

Such exceptions, as I have said, have proved the practice. There have been statements from the Chair supporting the usual practice for more than 60 years and I do not feel that as Speaker, I can disregard this practice.

If the practice is to be changed and if the honourable Member for Davenport wants to see it changed, I would urge him to press his case with the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges. That Committee has the power to inquire into the rules and practices of the House and can make recommendations to change the rules and practices as they think fit. The House can then determine whether or not such recommendations should be adopted. The honourable Member may wish to consider this approach.

I regret that I am unable to find that the honourable Member has a valid question of privilege.

F0710-e

34-2

1990-05-03