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.
Sub-subtopic: MR. MAJOR-PROTEST CONCERNING STATEMENT OF HON. MEMBER FOR SHEFFORD- OBSERVATIONS BY MR. SPEAKER ON PROCEDURE