DOCSLIB.ORG

Parliamentary Language Canada[Edit]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Parliamentary Language Canada[Edit] Parliamentary Language Parliaments and legislative bodies around the world impose certain rules and standards during debates. Tradition has evolved that there are words or phrases that are deemed inappropriate for use in the legislature whilst it is in session. In a Westminster system, this is called unparliamentary language and there are similar rules in other kinds of legislative system. This includes, but is not limited to the suggestion of dishonesty or the use of profanity. The most prohibited case is any suggestion that another member is dishonourable. So, for example, suggesting that another member is lying is forbidden.[1] Exactly what constitutes unparliamentary language is generally left to the discretion of the Speaker of the House. Part of the speaker's job is to enforce the assembly's debating rules, one of which is that members may not use "unparliamentary" language. That is, their words must not offend the dignity of the assembly. In addition, legislators in some places are protected from prosecution and civil actions by parliamentary immunitywhich generally stipulates that they cannot be sued or otherwise prosecuted for anything spoken in the legislature. Consequently they are expected to avoid using words or phrases that might be seen as abusing that immunity. Like other rules that have changed with the times, speakers' rulings on unparliamentary language reflect the tastes of the period. Canada[edit] These are some of the words and phrases that speakers through the years have ruled "unparliamentary" in the Parliament of Canada, the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, and the National Assembly of Québec: parliamentary pugilist (1875) a bag of wind (1878) inspired by forty-rod whisky (1881)[3] coming into the world by accident (1886) blatherskite (1890) the political sewer pipe from Carleton County (1917) lacking in intelligence (1934) a dim-witted saboteur (1956) liar (consistently from 1959 to the present) hypocrisy, hypocrite (from the early years through the tenure of Speaker Gilbert Parent; apparently not ruled unparliamentary by Speaker Peter Milliken) a trained seal (1961) evil genius (1962) Canadian Mussolini (1964) pompous ass (1967) fuddle duddle (1971)—probably the most famous example in Canada pig (1977) jerk (1980) sleaze bag (1984) racist (1986) scuzzball (1988) girouette (French for "weathervane", Québec 2007) bully (2011) a piece of shit (Justin Trudeau to Peter Kent, Question period 2011)[4] Fart (2016) Hong Kong[edit] The President of the Legislative Council ordered out for using the following phrases: 臭罌出臭草 (foul grass grows out of a foul ditch), when referring to some of the members (1996).[5] The following phrases have been deemed unparliamentary by the President of the Legislative Council: 仆街 (literally stumble on street, loosely translated as "go die" or "go to hell") widely considered by Hong Kongers as unacceptable language in civil settings (2009). This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it. India[edit] In 2012, the Indian Parliament published a book of words and phrases that were considered to be unparliamentary:[6] Bad Man Badmashi Bag of shit Bandicoot Communist Double-minded Goonda Rat Ringmaster Scumbag Randi Ireland[edit] In Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas (Parliament) in Ireland, the Ceann Comhairle (chair) has ruled that it is disorderly for one Teachta Dála (deputy) to describe another as a: benny pair of bennies (in the case of two TDs) brat buffoon chancer communist corner boy coward fascist gurrier guttersnipe hypocrite rat scumbag scurrilous speaker yahoo Or to insinuate that a TD is lying or drunk; or has violated the secrets of cabinet, or doctored an official report.[7] Also, the reference to "handbagging", particularly with reference to a female member of the House, has been deemed to be unparliamentary.[8] The Dáil maintains a document, Salient Rulings of the Chair which covers behaviour in and out of the House by TDs; section 428 of this lists unparliamentary speech.[9][10] In December 2009, Paul Gogarty apologised in advance for using "unparliamentary language" prior to shouting "fuck you!" at an opposition chief whip.[9] This phrase was not one of those listed explicitly as inappropriate, prompting calls for a review.[11] Seán Barrett, Ceann Comhairle of the 31st Dáil accused TDs of being like "gurriers shouting on a street at each other". He said he would not apologise for this.[12] Italy[edit] The use of foul language in Parliament produced jurisprudence by the constitutional court, which has implemented the libel suits.[13] New Zealand[edit] The Parliament of New Zealand maintains a list of words, and particularly phrases, that the Speaker has ruled are unbecoming, insulting, or otherwise unparliamentary. These include:[14] idle vapourings of a mind diseased (1946) his brains could revolve inside a peanut shell for a thousand years without touching the sides (1949) energy of a tired snail returning home from a funeral (1963) The Parliament also maintains a list of language that has been uttered in the House, and has been found not to be unparliamentary; this includes: commo (meaning communist, 1969) scuttles for his political funk hole (1974) Norway[edit] In 2009, a member of the Progress Party was interrupted during question period by the Speaker for calling a minister a "highway bandit".[citation needed] United Kingdom[edit] In House of Commons of the United Kingdom, the following words have been deemed unparliamentary over time: bastard[15] blackguard coward deceptive[16] dodgy[17] drunk falsehoods[18] git guttersnipe hooligan hypocrite idiot ignoramus liar pipsqueak[19] rat swine stoolpigeon tart traitor[20] sod slimy wart In addition, accusations of 'crooked deals' or insinuation of the use of banned substances by a member are considered unparliamentary language (all attributable to Dennis Skinner).[21] The word 'dodgy' when used by Ed Miliband, was not however, found to be unparliamentary.[22] Northern Ireland[edit] The Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, William Hay MLA, gave a ruling in the Chamber on 24 November 2009 on unparliamentary language.[23] In essence rather than making judgements on the basis of particular words or phrases that have been ruled to be unparliamentarily in the Assembly or elsewhere the Speaker said that he would judge Members' remarks against standards of courtesy, good temper and moderation which he considered to be the standards of parliamentary debate. He went on to say that in making his judgement he would consider the nature of Members' remarks and the context in which they were made. In 2013, Hay ruled that insinuation of MLAs being members of proscribed organizations was unparliamentary language.[24] Wales[edit] In the National Assembly for Wales the Presiding Officer has intervened when the term "lying" has been used. In December 2004, the Presiding Officer notably sent Leanne Wood out of the chamber for referring to Queen Elizabeth II as "Mrs Windsor".[25] United States[edit] In the USA, representatives were censured for using unparliamentary language in the House of Representatives throughout its history. Other levels of government have similar disciplinary procedures dealing with inappropriate words spoken in the legislature. It is a point of pride among some British MPs to be able to insult their opponents in the House without use of unparliamentary language. Several MPs, notably Sir Winston Churchill, have been considered masters of this game.[citation needed] Some terms which have evaded the Speaker's rules are: Terminological inexactitude (lie) Being economical with the truth (lying by omission), since used on the floor of the house as an insult or taunt. Tired and emotional, a euphemism for intoxicated Clare Short implicitly accused the Employment minister Alan Clark of being drunk at the dispatch box shortly after her election in 1983, but avoided using the word, saying that Clark was "incapable". Clark's colleagues on the Conservative benches in turn accused Short of using unparliamentary language and the Speaker asked her to withdraw her accusation. Clark later admitted in his diaries that Short had been correct in her assessment. In 1991, Speaker Bernard Weatherill, adjudged that usage of "jerk" by Opposition leader Neil Kinnock was not unparliamentary language.[26] Scottish National Party MPs have descended on Westminster and are apparently breaking parliamentary rules by taking selfies and applauding. Heres are some other things MPs can't do. Use anyone’s names This rule sounds like part of a bad drinking game, but it’s true. MPs are not allowed to refer to each other by name and instead always refer to “the honourable member for…” the place they were elected to. If you can’t remember where someone is MP for you can refer to them as “the honourable gentleman” or “the honourable lady”. If you’re talking about someone from the same party they can be referred to as “my honourable friend”, while members of the privy council – usually ministers –are “the right honourable”. The exception to this is the Speaker, who can refer to anyone he likes by name. Talk to anyone except the Speaker MPs are only allowed to speak to one person in the House of Commons: the Speaker. Nobody else is ever directly addressed. This is why politicians talk in the way that they do, beginning their sentences with “Mr Speaker”, and referring to “he” or “she” instead of “you” when making points about their opponents or friends in a debate. In reality, MPs do chat and whisper to each other on the back-benches, though this isn't part of the debate. Take photos No one is allowed to take photos or shoot videos in the chamber apart from the fixed TV cameras we’re used to seeing debates through.This is one of the reasons why the BBC’s recent documentary, Inside The Commons, was so striking – it brought the place to life with angles we don’t normally see.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Use and Misuse of Members' Statements
    The Use and Misuse of Members’ Statements by Evan Sotiropoulos On February 26, 2009, House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken issued instructions to House Leaders regarding Standing Order 31 – Statements by Members. In it, he reminded them that “personal attacks are not permitted” and that he will “vigorously enforce the authority given to him to cut off Members if, in his opinion, improper statements are made.” This article looks at the 2009 CanLIIDocs 316 background to his instruction including an analysis of some 4000 Members’ Statements during the two previous minority parliaments. It considers whether Members have abused the rules relating to Members’ Statements and whether the Standing Orders relating to Members’ Statements should be reconsidered. he Daily Proceedings, one of five categories of • Congratulatory messages, recitations of poetry activities in the House, comprise three events: and frivolous matters are out of order. TPrayers (followed by O Canada on Wednesdays); Members have paid little attention to the prohibition 15 minutes for Members’ Statements; and 45 minutes against congratulatory messages but the restriction for Question Period. This hour of action is, without on personal attacks has been reaffirmed by multiple question, the main event in the Daily Order of Business rulings. In 1990, Speaker John Fraser clarified that a in Canada’s lower chamber. statement about another Member’s political position Each day at 2:00 p.m. (11:00 a.m. on Fridays), would be acceptable, but a personal attack against a Members who are not Ministers, when recognized Member would not be allowed. In 1996, Speaker Gilbert by the Speaker, are permitted to address the House Parent cautioned “once the words have been uttered, on virtually any matter of international, national, it is very difficult to retract them and the impression 1 provincial or local concern.
    [Show full text]
  • A Diachronic Study of Unparliamentary Language in the New Zealand Parliament, 1890-1950
    WITHDRAW AND APOLOGISE: A DIACHRONIC STUDY OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE IN THE NEW ZEALAND PARLIAMENT, 1890-1950 BY RUTH GRAHAM A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Applied Linguistics Victoria University of Wellington 2016 ii “Parliament, after all, is not a Sunday school; it is a talking-shop; a place of debate”. (Barnard, 1943) iii Abstract This study presents a diachronic analysis of the language ruled to be unparliamentary in the New Zealand Parliament from 1890 to 1950. While unparliamentary language is sometimes referred to as ‘parliamentary insults’ (Ilie, 2001), this study has a wider definition: the language used in a legislative chamber is unparliamentary when it is ruled or signalled by the Speaker as out of order or likely to cause disorder. The user is required to articulate a statement of withdrawal and apology or risk further censure. The analysis uses the Communities of Practice theoretical framework, developed by Wenger (1998) and enhanced with linguistic impoliteness, as defined by Mills (2005) in order to contextualise the use of unparliamentary language within a highly regulated institutional setting. The study identifies and categorises the lexis of unparliamentary language, including a focus on examples that use New Zealand English or te reo Māori. Approximately 2600 examples of unparliamentary language, along with bibliographic, lexical, descriptive and contextual information, were entered into a custom designed relational database. The examples were categorised into three: ‘core concepts’, ‘personal reflections’ and the ‘political environment’, with a number of sub-categories. This revealed a previously unknown category of ‘situation dependent’ unparliamentary language and a creative use of ‘animal reflections’.
    [Show full text]
  • Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians Background Study: Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians
    Background Study: Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians Background Study: Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians Warsaw, 2012 Published by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Ul. Miodowa 10, 00–251 Warsaw, Poland http://www.osce.org/odihr © OSCE/ODIHR 2012, ISBN 978–92–9234–844–1 All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may be freely used and copied for educational and other non-commercial purposes, provided that any such reproduction is accompanied by an acknowledgement of the OSCE/ODIHR as the source. Designed by Homework Cover photo of the Hungarian Parliament Building by www.heatheronhertravels.com. Printed by AGENCJA KARO Table of contents Foreword 5 Executive Summary 8 Part One: Preparing to Reform Parliamentary Ethical Standards 13 1.1 Reasons to Regulate Conduct 13 1.2 The Limits of Regulation: Private Life 19 1.3 Immunity for Parliamentarians 20 1.4 The Context for Reform 25 Part Two: Tools for Reforming Ethical Standards 31 2.1 A Code of Conduct 34 2.2 Drafting a Code 38 2.3 Assets and Interests 43 2.4 Allowances, Expenses and Parliamentary Resources 49 2.5 Relations with Lobbyists 51 2.6 Other Areas that may Require Regulation 53 Part Three: Monitoring and Enforcement 60 3.1 Making a Complaint 62 3.2 Investigating Complaints 62 3.3 Penalties for Misconduct 69 3.4 Administrative Costs 71 3.5 Encouraging Compliance 72 3.6 Updating and Reviewing Standards 75 Conclusions 76 Glossary 79 Select Bibliography 81 Foreword The public accountability and political credibility of Parliaments are cornerstone principles, to which all OSCE participating States have subscribed.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Procedure in Practice Index
    SENATE PROCEDURE IN PRACTICE INDEX A Acting Speaker When the Speaker and Speaker pro tempore are absent, another senator is chosen ............................ 27 Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. See Speech from the Throne Adjournment ........................................................................................................................................ 75-76 Adjournment periods ........................................................................................................................ 57-58 Committees Meetings when Senate stands adjourned ...................................................................................... 194 Recall of Senate during adjournment .............................................................................................. 26, 58 When Speaker absent ..................................................................................................................... 26 Sittings ................................................................................................................................................. 58 Due to lack of quorum .................................................................................................................... 62 Amendments. See also Motions Bills Committee reports ........................................................................................................................ 146 Committee stage ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Parliamentary Mandate
    THE PARLIAMENTARY MANDATE A GLOBAL COMPARATIVE STUDY THE PARLIAMENTARY MANDATE A GLOBAL COMPARATIVE STUDY Marc Van der Hulst Inter-Parliamentary Union Geneva 2000 @ Inter-Parliamentary Union 2000 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not be a way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold hired or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form or binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent publisher. ISBN 92-9142-056-5 Published by INTER-PARLIAMETARY UNION Headquarters Liaison Office with the United Nations Place du Petit-Saconnex 821 United Nations Plaza C.P. 438 9th Floor 1211 Geneva 19 New York, N.Y. 10017 Switzerland United States of America Layout, printing and binding by Atar, Geneva Cover design by Aloys Robellaz, Les Studios Lolos, Carouge, Switzerland (Translated from the French by Jennifer Lorenzi and Patricia Deane) t Table of Contents FOREWORD ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi INTRODUCTION l PART ONE: NATURE AND DURATION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY MANDATE I. NATURE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY MANDATE 6 1. The traditional opposition between national sovereignty and popular sovereignty 6 2. The free representational mandate 8 3. The imperative mandate 9 4. A choice motivated by pragmatic rather than ideological considerations? 10 II. DURATION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY MANDATE..
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous People and Parliament P. 24 Moving Forward Together
    Canadian eview V olume 39, No. 2 Moving Forward Together: Indigenous People and Parliament p. 24 The Mace currently in use in the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan was made in 1906 and used for the first time in March of that year at the opening of the First Session of the First Legislative Assembly. Purchased from Ryrie Bros. Ltd. of Toronto at a cost of $340.00, it is made of heavy gold-plated brass and is about four feet long. The head consists of a Royal Crown with the arches surmounted by a Maltese cross and bears the Royal Coat-of-Arms on the top indicating the Royal Authority. Each side is decorated with a sheaf of wheat, representing the province’s agricultural wealth, a beaver representing Canada and the monogram E.R. VII, representing the sovereign at the time, Edward VII. The shaft and base are ornamented with a shamrock, thistle and rose intertwined. A Latin inscription around the Royal Coat of Arms reads in English, “Edward the Seventh, by the Grace of God of British Isles and Lands beyond the sea which are under British rule, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India”. Monique Lovett Manager of Interparliamentary Relations and Protocol Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan Courtesy of British Columbia Legislative Library Stick Talking BC Legislature, The Canadian Parliamentary Review was founded in 1978 to inform Canadian legislators about activities of the federal, provincial and territorial branches of the Canadian Region of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and to promote the study of and interest in Canadian parliamentary institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Cataraqui Loyalist Town Crier
    CATARAQUI LOYALIST TOWN CRIER The Kingston and District Branch United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada P.O. Box 635, Kingston, Ontario K7L 4X1 www.uelac.org/kingston https://www.facebook.com/groups/KingstonUELAC/ Kingston and District Branch was granted its charter November 4, 1978 Volume 36, No. 4 – September 2017 NEXT MEETING: Saturday, September 23, 1:00 p.m. at St. Paul’s Church Hall, 137 Queen Street. Topic: “Loyalist Clothing: Design and Fabric for Period-appropriate Costumes”. Garments will be modelled and discussed. Resources will be available. Since our Hospitality Committee will be unavailable that day, we’re suggesting that you may want to gather as a group for lunch beforehand at the Golden Rooster Delicatessen, 111 Princess Street, by noon. Enjoy a self-serve lunch and then leave by the back door, which brings you out on Queen Street just half a block from St. Paul’s. Bring or wear your historic garments to add to the discussion! MAY 30 BANQUET LUNCHEON Kingston & District Branch UELAC Officers President: Peter Milliken Past President: Dean Taylor Vice President: VACANT Secretary: VACANT Treasurer: Gerry Roney Committee Chairs Genealogist: Anne Redish Hospitality: Maureen Long House: Jim Long Library: VACANT Membership & Welcome: Lorraine Sherren Newsletter: VACANT Programme: Jean Rae Baxter Publicity: Nancy Cutway photo: Nancy Cutway UE Web Editor: Nancy Cutway Above: Those who joined us for a delicious meal at Minos Village Restaurant are listening intently as David More, PhD candidate at Queen’s University, speaks about “How Thousands of Loyalists Were Shipped to Eastern Ontario and how such maritime industry shaped the development of Central Canada.” Cataraqui Loyalist Town Crier, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • RSC 2018 Seminar Bios
    Royal Society of Canada Eastern Ontario Regional Seminar Saturday, April 14, 2018, Queen’s University Club, 168 Stuart St, Kingston, ON All Presentations are Free and Open to the Public 10:00 am: Peter Milliken: The Role of the Speaker of the House of Commons Peter Milliken was born in Kingston and after high school he attended Queen’s University beginning in 1964 studying Politics and Economics. He graduated in 1968 and went to Oxford University to study law where he earned a B.A. in 1970 then went to Dalhousie University to get an LL.B. in 1971. He practiced law in Kingston after his call to the Bar in 1973 until 1988 when he was elected M.P. for Kingston and the Islands. He served in the House of Commons until 2011 as M.P. and was Deputy Speaker from 1996 until 2000 and was elected Speaker in 2001 and reelected in 2004, 2006 and 2008 and served until his retirement in 2011. Milliken also has the unique distinction of being the first Speaker to preside over four Parliaments. His legacy includes his landmark rulings on Parliament’s right to information, which are key elements of parliamentary precedent both in Canada and throughout the Commonwealth. He currently resides in Kingston enjoying retirement. 11:00 am: Stéphanie Bélanger: War Trauma, Culture of War and Soldier Identity Dr. Bélanger is the Associate Scientific Director of the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research, a unique consortium of 43 Canadian universities dedicated to researching the health needs of military personnel, Veterans and their families.
    [Show full text]
  • 50Th Canadian Regional CPA Conference
    50th Canadian Regional CPA Conference Gary Levy The Fiftieth Conference of the Canadian Region, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association takes place in Québec City July 15-21, 2012. This article traces the evolution of the Canadian Region with particular emphasis on previous conferences organized by the Québec Branch. ccording to Ian Imrie, former Secretary- Many provincial branches of CPA existed in name Treasurer of the Canadian Region, the rationale only but the idea of a permanent Canadian association Afor a meeting of Canadian representatives appealed to Speaker Michener. within the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association We can, I think, strengthen the Canadian was partly to help legislators develop an understanding Federation by these conferences. I am sure that of the parliamentary process. Also, this meeting, though it brings all too few people from the western provinces to the Maritimes, If we are to have a united country it is important demonstrates the value of it. I am sure that that elected members from one part of the country the other members from the West, who have visit other areas and gain an appreciation of the not visited Halifax would say that today their problems and challenges of their fellow citizens. I understanding of the Canadian Federation do not think I ever attended a conference, would be greatly helped by conferences held including those in Ottawa, where there were first in the East, then in the West and the Centre.2 not a number of legislators visiting that part of the country for the first time. One should not Premier Stanfield wanted to know more about what underestimate the value of such experiences.1 was going on in other legislatures.
    [Show full text]
  • Core 1..146 Hansard (PRISM::Advent3b2 8.00)
    CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 140 Ï NUMBER 098 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 38th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, May 13, 2005 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 5957 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, May 13, 2005 The House met at 10 a.m. Parliament on February 23, 2005, and Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, shall be disposed of as follows: 1. Any division thereon requested before the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, shall be deferred to that time; Prayers 2. At the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, all questions necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of (1) Bill C-43 and (2) Bill C-48 shall be put and decided forthwith and successively, Ï (1000) without further debate, amendment or deferral. [English] Ï (1010) MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have the The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that a unanimous consent of the House for this motion? message has been received from the Senate informing this House Some hon. members: Agreed. that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired. Some hon. members: No. Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional & Parliamentary Information
    UNION INTERPARLEMENTAIRE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION CCoonnssttiittuuttiioonnaall && PPaarrlliiaammeennttaarryy IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn Half-yearly Review of the Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments The impact of Brexit as felt by other parliaments in the European Union (Dr Georg KLEEMANN, Germany) The impact of Brexit as felt by other parliaments in the European Union (Peter FINNEGAN, Ireland) The presidential system to be implemented in Turkey in 2019 (Mehmet Ali KUMBUZOGLU, Turkey) The procedure followed in the Senate for the application of Section 155.1 of the Spanish Constitution in relation to the self-governing community of Catalonia (Manuel CAVERO, Spain) The formation of a government in a multi-party democracy (Geert Jan A. HAMILTON, Netherlands) The relationship between Parliament and Government (General debate) The Standing Rules and Reforms in the National Assembly: Parliament of the Republic of South Africa (Masibulele XASO, South Africa) The Parliament of Bahrain’s experiment in communication with community (Abdullah ALDOSERI, Bahrain) Participation of society in the innovation process in parliaments (Mauro Limeira Mena BARRETO, Brazil) Participation of society in the innovation process in parliaments (Ali YILDIZ, Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic-speaking countries (TURKPA)) Free speech and parliamentary privilege in plenary sittings (Charles ROBERT, Canada) Judicial scrutiny over internal parliamentary affairs (General debate) Review of the ASGP / 68th year / No 215 / Geneva, 26 – 28 March 2018 ASSOCIATION DES SECRETAIRES ASSOCIATION OF SECRETARIES- GENERAUX DES PARLEMENTS GENERAL OF PARLIAMENTS UNION INTERPARLEMENTAIRE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION MINUTES OF THE SPRING SESSION GENEVA 26 – 28 MARCH 2018 1 2 INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION Aims The Inter-Parliamentary Union, whose international Statute is outlined in a Headquarters Agreement drawn up with the Swiss federal authorities, is the only world-wide organisation of Parliaments.
    [Show full text]
  • Citation Read on the Occasion of the Granting of the Degree of Honorary Doctor of Laws to the Honourable Peter Milliken by the S
    Citation read on the occasion of the granting of the degree of Honorary Doctor of Laws to The Honourable Peter Milliken by the Senate of the University of Victoria June 12, 2013 Mr. Chancellor, I have the honour to introduce Peter Milliken, past Speaker of the House of Commons. Mr. Milliken’s life has now come full circle. With detours to Ottawa, Oxford, Halifax, and Ottawa once again, he has returned to his hometown of Kingston, Ontario. Along the way, he has given extraordinary service to his community and country, making significant contributions as an elected representative and the longest-serving leader in the House of Commons during very challenging times. Mr. Milliken’s list of personal attributes is remarkable in its own right. He showed an early fascination for Hansard, the record of parliament’s debates and decisions, both as a teenager and as an undergraduate at Queen’s University. Later, at Oxford University, he developed his interest in jurisprudence and rowing. Blessed with a photographic memory, he trained as a lawyer at Dalhousie University and subsequently practiced with a well-known firm in Kingston. He served many institutions in his local community, teaching at the university, serving on hospital, church and symphony boards, and contributing to the local Liberal association. His deep interest in history and his respect for the nation’s institutions and traditions, have been complemented by a respect for people of all walks of life. He has had an abiding love of the outdoors and of choral and classical music, and has a fine sense of humour.
    [Show full text]