Member's attire: practice

Mr. Speaker: On Monday, February 19, the honourable Member for Davenport raised a question of privilege because he had not been recognized in debate the previous Thursday, February 15, when the House was considering the motion of the Government on language rights. At the time, the Acting Speaker declined to recognize the honourable Member for Davenport because he was not properly dressed. The honourable Member has asked the Chair to reconsider its reliance on the traditional interpretation of the practice of the House that required male Members be dressed with jacket and tie. In making his case, the honourable Member pointed to the latitude accorded women Members who can dress, as he put it, "in a variety of ways according to fashions and changing trends". The honourable Member also quoted the Deputy Speaker who, last December 14, referred to Beauchesne and the practice that Members are expected to respect in terms of their appearance. [3] The honourable Member stressed, however, that this is a practice and not a rule. This is certainly true, but it is a practice that is well established. Exceptions have been allowed from time to time, but always within the context of the accepted practice. Clergymen Members have requested the right to wear their distinctive collar instead of a tie and Members who have sustained an injury have asked to be excused from the wearing of a jacket or a tie for short periods of time when it was not possible because of the injury. In this connection I would point to the recent cases involving the honourable Members for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte (Mr. Brian Tobin) and for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Pierre Vincent). [4] Such exceptions, as I have said, have proved the practice. There have been statements from the Chair supporting the usual practice for more than 60 years and I do not feel that as Speaker, I can disregard this practice. If the practice is to be changed and if the honourable Member for Davenport wants to see it changed, I would urge him to press his case with the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges. That Committee has the power to inquire into the rules and practices of the House and can make recommendations to change the rules and practices as they think fit. The House can then determine whether or not such recommendations should be adopted. The honourable Member may wish to consider this approach. I regret that I am unable to find that the honourable Member has a valid question of privilege. F0710-e 34-2 1990-05-03. [1] Debates, February 15, 1990, p. 8414. [2] Debates, February 19, 1990, pp. 8485-6. [3] Debates, December 14, 1989, p. 6908. [4] While the incident involving Mr. Vincent is recorded in Debates, April 5, 1990, pp. 10242-3, the incident involving Mr. Tobin cannot be located in Hansard.