June 19, 1967

PRIVILEGE

PORT ABINO LIGHTHOUSE-RIGHT TO VISIT PUBLIC WORKS AND INSTITUTIONS

NDP

Winona Grace MacInnis

New Democratic Party

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):

I rise on a question of privilege which affects my rights as a member of this house.

While in the neighbourhood of Fort Erie on Saturday, June 10, I was taken by members of the Association for the Preservation of the Erie East Lakefront to see the federal lighthouse at Port Abino. We took the only access road, drawing up at the home of the lighthouse keeper. A neighbouring resident backed his car from the garage squarely across the road, barring our way back. An argument ensued, following which he gave us 20 minutes to get off the road before he would call the police. As we were ready to go, we left without further ado, although I may say not without reluctance on our part.

Now, here is my point of privilege. As a federal member of parliament I believe I have every right to visit public works which are paid for by the taxpayers, yet I was ordered off the access road by a local resident. He claimed that the courts had given him and other local residents the right to bar the road to the public. Yet this road is plowed in winter by the township at public expense.

Further, I was informed that in recent times the residents have moved the gate to the private section of the road so as to include about a quarter of a mile more than the court is supposed to have awarded them. This, Mr. Speaker, is a completely unwarranted interference with the rights of a member of this house to visit public works and institutions. I ask you to take steps to correct this situation without delay.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   PORT ABINO LIGHTHOUSE-RIGHT TO VISIT PUBLIC WORKS AND INSTITUTIONS
Permalink

MR. PENNELL-MINIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION, P.E.I.-TABLING AMENDED ANSWER

LIB

Lawrence T. Pennell (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. Last Monday I tabled a reply to question 138 by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. McQuaid).

The hon. member had asked whether representations had been received for the establishment of a minimum security institution in Prince Edward Island from the government of that province. The tabled answer stated that no representations had been received for the establishment of a minimum security institution, but a communication had been received regarding the establishment of a maximum security institution. Subsequently my attention was drawn to a letter in which representations had been made regarding a medium or minimum security institution, by the government of Prince Edward Island.

I regret any inconvenience that may have been caused the hon. member or other persons by the earlier answer and, with leave, I propose to table an amended answer.

Topic:   MR. PENNELL-MINIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION, P.E.I.-TABLING AMENDED ANSWER
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Has the hon. member leave to table an amended answer and have it printed in Hansard?

Topic:   MR. PENNELL-MINIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION, P.E.I.-TABLING AMENDED ANSWER
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

[Editor's Note: The question and amended answer above referred to are as follows:] Minimum Security Institution, P.E.I.

Topic:   MR. PENNELL-MINIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION, P.E.I.-TABLING AMENDED ANSWER
Permalink
PC

Mr. McQuaid

Progressive Conservative

1. Have representations for the establishment of a minimum security institution in Prince Edward Island been received from the government of that province?

2. Is it the intention of the government of Canada to proceed with the establishment of such an institution?

3. What progress towards this end can be reported to date?

Topic:   MR. PENNELL-MINIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION, P.E.I.-TABLING AMENDED ANSWER
Permalink
LIB

Lawrence T. Pennell (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):

1.

Representations have been received from the government of Prince Edward Island regarding the establishment of minimum, medium and maximum security institutions in that province.

2. It is not, at present, the intention of the government of Canada to proceed with the establishment of a federal penal institution in that province.

3. Not applicable.

Topic:   MR. PENNELL-MINIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION, P.E.I.-TABLING AMENDED ANSWER
Permalink

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

REFERENCE OF REPORTS TO STANDING COMMITTEE

LIB

John Whitney Pickersgill (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):

Mr. Speaker, if I could have the consent of the house I wonder if I might be

June 19, 1967

Justice and Legal Affairs permitted, although I know this is a bit unusual, to move item No. 25, standing on government orders, referring the annual report of the C.N.R. to the parliamentary committee. I understand the steering committee of the standing committee are desirous of having their proceedings on Thursday and Friday, and if there were no debate at this time I think it might be convenient for all hon. members if this motion could be accepted.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   REFERENCE OF REPORTS TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Is this agreed?

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   REFERENCE OF REPORTS TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   REFERENCE OF REPORTS TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

John Whitney Pickersgill (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Pickersgill:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith):

That the annual reports for 1966 of the Canadian National Railways and of the Canadian National Railways securities trust, tabled April 26, 1967 and the auditor's report to parliament for 1966 in respect of the Canadian National Railways tabled May 29, 1967 be referred to the standing committee on transport and communications.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   REFERENCE OF REPORTS TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

LIB

Alan John Patrick Cameron

Liberal

Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) moved

that the first report of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, presented to the house on Thursday, June 15, be concurred in.

Topic:   JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South

Centre): Mr. Speaker, this is a report of a committee asking for a reduction in the quorum from 13 to eight members. The committee consists of 24 members, as is the case with most of the committees of the house and here we are, only in the 30th day of a new session, with it asking for a reduction in the quorum. This occurred apparently at the first or second meeting of the committee. I notice that three other committees earlier asked for a reduction in quorum. There is another motion on the order paper asking for a reduction. It is obvious that something has gone wrong with the committee system.

We were treated two years ago to a great move in this house toward reform, with large numbers of committees being set up. Everything was to be done, apparently, by committee procedure. The membership of most of the committees was set at a figure of 24 members, and the quorum of each committee or of most of the committees was set at a majority of the

members. At that time I recall that I pointed out the ineffectiveness of this system. I opposed the multiplicity of committees and pointed out that the quorum arrangement might be ineffective.

It is rather strange that at the opening of a new session a committee should be rushing back to this house asking for a reduction in its quorum. These committees are all miniatures of the House of Commons. The majority in the house is held by the Liberal government. The majority in each committee is held by the Liberal government. This is an obvious indication that the Liberal government is unable to man the committees.

The experience over the last year and a half, when we had the longest session in living memory, was that, with one or two exceptions the members of the opposition pretty well sustained the committees that were in operation.

Topic:   JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink

June 19, 1967