Peter Milliken

[Points Of Order, October 18th, 1995]

I want to come to Your Honour's assistance in this regard. I think your decision in June was quite correct, as I am sure all hon. members do.

Wearing pins and ribbons in the House is a longstanding tradition as far as I can understand, certainly since I have been here. I do not consider that a long time ago by standards of others. With great respect, there is a difference between pins and large buttons with highly visible insignia constituting a demonstration.

Difficulties occur when members hold up papers, documents or things that constitute a demonstration in the House or when they wear substantial buttons, placards or other symbols that carry with them words or letters transmitted by television as a message.

Your Honour's ruling last June indicated that buttons which carry a message and were visible to the public were contrary to the standards of dress in the House. With great respect, I think Your Honour drew a distinction between those items and small buttons or pins that members wear not readily visible on television and which may convey a message but are very small and discreet.

The trick to me in dressing for the Chamber is to dress in a decorous way that may involve wearing small pins, possibly unusual ties from time time. I consider myself guilty sometimes on that score. Those are the things members are allowed to do. As long as it is tasteful I submit it is right. I think that was Your Honour's intention. I know members opposite, in making their points, are really supporting Your Honour's view in that regard.

[Motions For Papers, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Committees Of The House, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there are name changes for various committees, as I announced when I presented the report. There were changes naming associate members to certain committees and a change in the membership of the Library of Parliament committee. All was approved by the whips of the three parties in the House in accordance with normal practice.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Committees Of The House, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move that the 91st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

[Committees Of The House, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 91st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the list of members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Library of Parliament and associate members of standing committees. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move that the report be concurred in later today.

I also have the honour to present the 91st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection of votable items, in accordance with Standing Order 92.

This report is deemed adopted on presentation.

[Government Response To Petitions, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

[Point Of Order, October 18th, 1995]

A point of order. I thought he said it breached the privileges of the House, Mr. Speaker, and that he wanted it ruled out of order because it breached the privileges of the House, because it interfered with our privilege to manage our financial affairs, the financial affairs of the country.

I turn to citation 24 of Beauchesne's sixth edition where it states:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions.

I submit that in the tabling of this report there has been no impedance with members' functions or their ability to discharge their functions. We have here a situation where the hon. member disagrees with some of the contents of the report. I have no doubt the government disagrees with some of the contents of the report as well. I suspect if I read it all as thoroughly as the hon. member obviously has I would probably disagree with parts of the report.

However the place for him to take his complaints is not to the House to have the report ruled out of order. The auditor general has a right to submit his opinions to the House. He is an officer of the House and that is his duty. Surely the hon. member should go to the public accounts committee and complain about the report if he disagrees with it. Then the public accounts committee would report to the House saying it disagrees with the auditor general's report if the committee agrees. Surely that is where this complaint ought to go.

The hon. member has not raised a point of order or a question of privilege in my submission. He has raised what I can only suggest is a complaint. He disagrees with the report, fine. He should go to the committee and express his disagreement. That is what the committee is for. That is why it has been referred there.

[Point Of Order, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona has argued with his usual erudition but I submit that even in his wildest dreams he could not have imagined that the point he has raised is really a question of privilege.

I refer Your Honour to-

[Points Of Order, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the comments of the hon. member deserve some reply. I am not sure he has raised a valid point of order, but I submit in respect of the procedure on this bill and others that are dealt with in this way that hon. members are able to go to the committee to which the bill stands referred. Hon. members are also in a position to move amendments to the bill in the House at report stage.

There was an extensive debate at report stage. There was extensive debate at third reading. Indeed third reading debate was extended today by unanimous consent because some members apparently missed an opportunity to speak last evening. The government has been most solicitous in its efforts to ensure fair and reasonable debate on all aspects of the bill.

I submit the procedure followed was correct and in accordance with the rules. If the hon. member is suggesting-although I do not think I heard it in his comments-that there was in any way a problem with the procedure, I think if he looks at it and sees what happened in the committee he will agree there was not really a point of order.