January 24, 1969

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRIVILEGE

IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

I received earlier today the following notice from the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Major):

I hereby wish to advise you that, pursuant to standing order 17 (1) and (2), I should like to raise a question of privilege in the house, today, this 24th day of January 1969, at the eleven o'clock sitting.

I take this opportunity to point out to hon. members the provisions of standing order 17 and more specifically, subsection (2) of that order, the terms of which follow:

(2) Unless notice of motion has been given under Standing Order 42, any member proposing to raise a question of privilege other than one arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House.

The hon. member, as other hon. members in the past, merely gave notice to the Speaker that he wishes to raise a question of privilege and it seems to me that that interpretation of our standing orders is not quite accurate.

Not only must the hon. member advise the Speaker that he wishes to raise a question of privilege, but he must also reveal its nature. It seems to me the English version is perhaps more specific in that it stipulates as follows:

"-shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question".

I think it would be preferable, in the future, for the hon. members who wish to raise a question of privilege, under the provisions of standing order 17, to not only advise the Speaker, within the time limit stipulated by the standing order, that they wish to raise 29180-3021

a question of privilege, but also to give an indication of its subject matter.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   PRIVILEGE
Sub-subtopic:   MR. MAJOR-PROTEST CONCERNING STATEMENT OF HON. MEMBER FOR SHEFFORD- OBSERVATIONS BY MR. SPEAKER ON PROCEDURE
Permalink
?

Mr. Roberi-B. Major@Argenteuil

Mr. Speaker, since it was very late yesterday when we received the official report of the House of Commons Debates for Wednesday, January 22, this is the first opportunity I have to raise this matter.

On that day the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) the following question, and I quote:

Can he tell the house if he will make investigations on the mining rights presently owned by some financiers in the far north of Quebec, who are not only interested in seeing the future international airport built on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, in order to meet their needs better, but who have recently paid the cost of a study conducted by a certain firm, in co-operation with five members of parliament, in order to prove that the future international airport should be located at Sainte-Scholastique, in the constituency of Deux-Montagnes?

Mr. Speaker, the report on the study concerning the Montreal international airport, which was submitted to the Department of Transport by the Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes intermunicipal board was commissioned and paid for by that board, in a spirit of co-operation and motivation seldom displayed by public bodies.

The 43 municipalities in Argenteuil realized, as early as last summer, the economic significance for our area of the future international airport.

I take this opportunity to publicly congratulate all the mayor and reeves for their initiative-

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   PRIVILEGE
Sub-subtopic:   MR. MAJOR-PROTEST CONCERNING STATEMENT OF HON. MEMBER FOR SHEFFORD- OBSERVATIONS BY MR. SPEAKER ON PROCEDURE
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Order. I understand the

desire of the hon. member to congratulate the mayor concerned. However, I have to interrupt him at this time. I do not think that there is a question of privilege unless he wishes to move a motion at this time in order to follow up the question which was raised. And, as I do not think this is the intention of the hon. member, I must therefore rule that there is no question of privilege and that there should not be any debate on the matter raised by the hon. member.

January 24, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry

[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   PRIVILEGE
Sub-subtopic:   MR. MAJOR-PROTEST CONCERNING STATEMENT OF HON. MEMBER FOR SHEFFORD- OBSERVATIONS BY MR. SPEAKER ON PROCEDURE
Permalink

AGREEMENT TO FORGO SITTING ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 28

LIB

Donald Stovel Macdonald (President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, further to the announcement of business I made yesterday, I think there is general agreement to an order of the house that the sitting of the house on Tuesday, January 28, be suspended. Perhaps that could be made an order of the house.

Topic:   AGREEMENT TO FORGO SITTING ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 28
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Is it so agreed and ordered?

Topic:   AGREEMENT TO FORGO SITTING ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 28
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   AGREEMENT TO FORGO SITTING ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 28
Permalink

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

LIB

Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with standing order 41 (2), I should like to table in English and in French copies of the preliminary report of the ministerial mission sent to Latin America from October 27 to November 27, 1968, as well as a relevant press release.

Topic:   AGREEMENT TO FORGO SITTING ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 28
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   LATIN AMERICA-REPORT OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MINISTERIAL MISSION
Permalink

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

PC

John Angus MacLean

Progressive Conservative

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Speaking on the problem of recognizing China the Prime Minister said on November 8:

Our concern is that the government of Taiwan not be disregarded in the process.

When the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was asked on the evening of Tuesday, January 21, if relations would have to be broken with Formosa, he replied:

I would hesitate to answer that question, but it is quite possible.

Will the Prime Minister now say what the government's policy on this matter is at this time?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING MAINLAND AND NATIONALIST CHINA
Permalink
?

Right Hon. P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister

No, Mr. Speaker. The government's further policy will be announced in due course. When

[Mr. Speaker.)

the Secretary of State for External Affairs replied in the house yesterday to questions asked on the subject, he repeated what the government's position in this matter is.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING MAINLAND AND NATIONALIST CHINA
Permalink
PC

John Angus MacLean

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MacLean:

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question that arises from statements I believe attributed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to announce that definitive plans have been made to allow the exchange of views between the government of Canada and the new administration of the United States on the matter I referred to in my previous question, as well as on other matters of mutual concern?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING MAINLAND AND NATIONALIST CHINA
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Prime Minister)

Liberal

Mr. Trudeau:

No, Mr. Speaker. No definitive plans have been made in that regard yet.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING MAINLAND AND NATIONALIST CHINA
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):

I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think that the game of uncertainty in connection with the recognition discussions should end, since it is creating difficulty in other parts of the world and particularly at the moment in Formosa. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs last Tuesday night was asked by Mr. Collins on the C.B.C. program "Something Else" if we will have to break relations with Formosa was he stating government policy when he said "I would hesitate to answer that question, but it is quite possible." What is the meaning of those words?

Will the Prime Minister make a statement that will restore a certain degree of hope that the people of Formosa are not going to be sacrificed in any action that is taken?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING MAINLAND AND NATIONALIST CHINA
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING MAINLAND AND NATIONALIST CHINA
Permalink

January 24, 1969