The "Right To Bare Arms" Drama: Dress Guidelines in British Columbia's Legislative Assembly.

• Author: Routledge, Janet

Following a Legislative Press Gallery protest--about whether clothing that revealed bare arms was appropriate work attire in British Columbia's Legislative Assembly--BC's Speaker Darryl Plecas asked the Acting Clerk Kate Ryan-Lloyd to explore and update the institution's largely unwritten dress guidelines. In this article, the author recounts the "Right To Bare Arms" drama, outlines the steps the Acting Clerk took to create new guidelines, and explains what kind of input her colleagues offered during the process. She concludes that revisiting the Assembly's dress code and guidelines--especially in light of an increasingly diverse workplace and contemporary ideas about gender identity--was a valuable endeavour and encourages other parliamentarians to consider similar issues if they engage in a similar process.

Earlier this year, I was asked to present on a panel about dress codes in parliament at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's Canadian Regional conference. A parliamentarian from another province at this event expressed incredulity that such a topic would be on the agenda in 2019.

Indeed, if I had been asked a year ago whether this was something we needed to address, I would have had a similar reaction. But, of course, that would have been before I and other members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia found ourselves involved in a "right to bare arms" drama.

In this article I will explain why the parliamentary dress code recently became a flash point in BC's Assembly, how we chose to address a controversy, and what we learned from this episode.

First, it's important to provide some context. As a first-term MLA, when I arrived at the legislature to begin representing my constituents, I received a thorough and detailed orientation to what was expected of me as an MLA. Never was I briefed about what to wear or not to wear. I simply observed women on both sides of the aisle and made my choices accordingly.

I started wearing brighter jackets and avoided busy patterns. I had heard rumours about not being allowed to wear orange (my party's colour) or open toed shoes, but if it weren't for the drama that occurred in March 2019,1 wouldn't have known about Standing Order 36.

Standing Order 36

In the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, the dress code for Members is not explicitly set out in the Standing Orders. Instead, it's relied on administrative practices and memoranda issued by Speakers over many years to outline what is appropriate dress.

Our Standing Orders don't offer much guidance in this respect. Standing Order 36 simply states, "Every Member desiring to speak is to rise in his or her place uncovered, and address the Speaker." This Standing Order originates from the colonial Standing Orders of the Legislative Council of British Columbia that became the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly when BC joined Confederation in 1871. The provision of rising uncovered refers to men at that time, who could not wear their hats when participating in debate.

Outside of the Standing Order, Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, 4th edition, our procedural guide in the Legislative Assembly, states, "In relation to Members' dress, apart from the usual 'jacket and tie' requirement for male members, there is little authority." It also notes a June 1980 Speaker's decision where the guidelines used in Beauchesne--"conservative contemporary...