Rules of Debate / Miscellaneous

March 16, 1998

Debates, pp. 4902-3

On February 26, 1998, Michel Gauthier raised a point of order regarding a disturbance created by some members that had prevented Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis) from asking a question during Oral Questions. The members in question had sung the national anthem and waved Canadian flags as a response to criticism made earlier by Mrs. Tremblay to the display of Canadian flags in the Athletes’ Village during the 1998 Winter Olympics. Mr. Gauthier, noting that the Acting Speaker (Ian McClelland) had earlier ruled the waving of flags during a speech by Mrs. Tremblay out of order as inappropriate,^[1] stated that if the cooperation of his party was expected in the House, such displays should not be allowed to prevent any member from asking questions or participating in debate. After hearing interventions from other members, the Speaker reserved his decision.^[2]

On March 16, 1998, the Speaker delivered his ruling. The Chair ruled that the events during Oral Questions on February 26 were out of order and that such an incident must not be repeated. The Speaker declared that the ruling was not about the Canadian flag, nor about the national anthem, nor about patriotism, nor about the rights of one political faction over another. The basic principles at issue were order and decorum and the duty of the Speaker to apply the rules and practices of the House. Regarding the display of flags in the Chamber, the Speaker ruled that unless and until the House decided otherwise, no displays would be allowed, and that current practice would be upheld.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I wish to address the incident that occurred before the House adjourned Thursday, February 26, 1998.

I also wish to speak of the subsequent related events, which appear to have overtaken this House.

As the House knows, when asked to rule, Speakers usually restrict their comments to the four comers of the specific incident before them. However, in this case, the original incident has been so distorted that it has virtually been lost sight of while controversy rages around matters that were not originally at issue. Under the circumstances, then, I ask that you bear with me while I address the salient points that have arisen in and around this case.

First, let us recall the original incident. During [Oral Questions] on February 26, the honourable member for Rimouski—Mitis was recognized. Before she even had the opportunity to begin her question, a disturbance among some members prevented her from preceding any further. Once some measure of calm had been restored, the honourable member went on to ask her question.

After [Oral Questions], the House leader of the Bloc Québécois raised a point of order about this disturbance and several other members also intervened to give their views on the matter.

The recess and the ongoing deliberations of the House leaders allowed me to reflect carefully on the disorder that day and on the issues that were raised as a result. Although I have been ready to rule since the return of the House, I wanted to give the House leaders ample time to resolve this situation.

It seems to me that there is a simple, fundamental principle at stake here: the duty of the Speaker to maintain order and decorum in the House.

Simply described, our Parliament works this way. First, members have a right to speak. Second, the rules and practices of the House determine how that right is applied so that all members are treated fairly. Third, the Speaker is charged with maintaining order in the Chamber by ensuring that the House’s rules and practices are respected.

As cited on pages 50 and 54 of Beauchesne 6th edition:

—the Speaker has the duty to maintain an orderly conduct of debate by repressing disorder when it arises—Those who preside must be mindful of the rights of members to speak freely, and the equally important right of the House to be free from obstruction and grave disorder.

In other words, the Speaker must balance the competing claims of different members.

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.

The issues that face the nation and that are debated in this House are formidable. During debate, emotions can run high and, in the heat of the moment, behaviour can sometimes stray beyond the bounds of what is acceptable. When that happens, the Chair must be vigilant in bringing the House back to order and insisting that our practices be respected.

I have looked carefully at practice here in the House of Commons and in other Canadian legislatures: in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom and in other Westminster-style Parliaments. Everywhere we have looked, we have found that the orderly conduct of business is fundamental to parliamentary practice.

Here, in their own vigilant defence of orderly proceedings, my predecessors 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.

Regrettably some of the media coverage of this incident and subsequent events seem to have missed the point. Pundits are indignant, claiming that the issue is whether the Canadian flag has a place in this Chamber. One newspaper went so far as to state in a lead editorial “decorum be damned”. I think this is a foolhardy comment that betrays a sad misconception of the nature of Parliaments and the way they work. If it is to function effectively and constructively, this House, like any other deliberative assembly, must rely on the respect of civility.

In a ruling given on March 24, 1993, Speaker Fraser eloquently captured what order and decorum means in an assembly like ours when he stated:

—the institution and our country has to take precedence over our own convictions when it comes to remarks in this place—there has to be reasonable order. When I say reasonable order, I say that because without it, there is no free speech and that is (fundamentally what) this place is all about: the right to speak.^[3]

Standing here today before the House, with a flag of Canada on either side of the Speaker’s chair, I can agree without reservation that there is no better place than the House of Commons for our flag, the symbol of our nation. Similarly, we can take pride in the relatively new practice of the singing of the national anthem before we begin proceedings on Wednesdays.

But this ruling is not about the flag. It is not about the national anthem. It is not about patriotism. It is not about the rights of one political faction over another. As I said earlier-and it bears repeating-the basic principles at issue here are order and decorum and the duty of the Speaker to apply the rules and practices of the House.

Our law guarantees the right of all duly-elected members to speak; our practice guarantees their right to be heard. It is the duty of the Speaker to guarantee that those rights are respected by guaranteeing that the House’s rules and practices are respected.

Today, my duty for which I have taken an oath as Speaker requires me to uphold the rules, precedents and traditions of this House that have served us so well during the last 130 years of parliamentary democracy in Canada. The events during Question Period on February 26 were clearly out of order, according to our parliamentary rules and practices. I therefore rule that such an incident must not be repeated.

However, I have been challenged to show my colours as a patriotic Canadian by allowing the unfettered display of flags in the Chamber. This would constitute an unprecedented unilateral change to the practice of the House of Commons, a change, my colleagues, which no Speaker has the authority to make. So, whatever pressure I have to do so, I cannot and I will not arrogate such authority to myself. Unless and until the House decides otherwise, no displays will be allowed and current practice will be upheld.

I trust, indeed I expect, as all honourable members have the right to expect, that when the Chair recognizes a member to speak, the House will extend to that member the courtesy of a respectful hearing of all Canadian members of Parliament. I ask all honourable members to govern themselves according to the House’s existing rules and practices, which the Speaker is bound to uphold.

We owe it to the constituents who have elected us to make every honest effort to maintain what has been—for the most part—civil and courteous debate.

P0703-e

36-1

1998-03-16