Peter Milliken

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 10th, 1995]

I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, questions Nos. 162 and 165 will be answered today.

Question No. 162-

[Committees Of The House, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 76th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92.

Those items are Bill S-7 in the name of the hon. member for Brant; Bill C-316, the hon. member for Cambridge; Bill C-319, the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest; Bill C-267, the hon. member for Québec; Motion No. 382, the hon. member for Mississauga South and Motion No. 381, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.

This report is deemed adopted on presentation.

While I am on my feet I also have the pleasure to present the 77th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

It is about the form used in the Journals of the House of Commons for the Speaker's tabling of supply bills for royal assent.

[Government Response To Petitions, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 42 petitions.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Maybe we should call an election to find out.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

We are giving you all kinds of time to explain.

[Points Of Order, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the submissions made by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster only bolster the point made by the chief government whip. The three questions we are saying were out of order were directed to the minister responsible for the bill that is being debated in the House all day today.

Therefore, for the hon. member to suggest that by somehow asking the President of the Treasury Board about his own bill the question is in order is utter rubbish. Those questions were out of order. It was as plain as plain could be.

I invite Your Honour when future questions arise concerning matters that are before the House for discussion on Orders of the Day to apply the strictures contained in Beauchesne, citations 409 and 410, both of which I quoted to the House in my remarks last Thursday when the member for Beaver River did precisely the same thing.

The citations in Beauchesne are intended to be mandatory guidelines directed to the order of question period. If the guidelines contained in Beauchesne are not going to be enforced and accepted by members, then the only solution is to change the standing orders of the House to put mandatory guidelines in them that then will be enforced.

I do not prefer that option and I am sure you do not, Mr. Speaker. There are times when we do not need to have hard and fast rules, when it is better to have guidelines which these are. They are guidelines. Consistent breaching of guidelines by using question period to further the debate on government legislation is improper. It has been condemned by Beauchesne. It is against the guideline in Beauchesne. It has been condemned by previous committees that have helped establish these guidelines in consultation with the Speaker.

In my submission the hon. member for Calgary Southwest should be embarrassed that he asked those questions today. I invite Your Honour in future to rule such questions out of order.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

What did they say about salaries?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Ask Silye what he thought about it; $150,000 salary, that is what he is talking about.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

There are only three out of fifty-three here.