May 2, 1972

PRIVILEGE

MR. LAMBERT (BELLECHASSE)-OBJECTION TO QUESTION ASKED BY LIBERAL MEMBER

SC

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert

Social Credit

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):

Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.

Yesterday, during the question period, the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) put a question of truly national interest to stress facetiously the absence of Social Credit members who, generally, are present in this House in a proportion which can be advantageously compared with that of a certain number of Liberal members.

I realize that when you are used to seeing someone in his seat and then one day he is absent, you may wonder why. But to ask whether the RCMP should be advised, I think that is going too far. It might also be slightly malicious, which is not in keeping with the dignity of our parliamentary system.

As far as I am concerned, I think that I can state, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of the present parliament, I have always made it a point to participate in the proceedings of the House, and, on several occasions, I could have asked for the adjournment of the House for lack of a quorum, which was not due to members of my party.

In conclusion, I should like to say that we understand the nature of our role in this House and that we fulfil it normally. Moreover, I believe that questions such as were asked by the hon. member for Papineau tend to reflect on a member's privilege and are contrary to the tradition of this House.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. LAMBERT (BELLECHASSE)-OBJECTION TO QUESTION ASKED BY LIBERAL MEMBER
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. member for Bellechasse gave notice to the Chair of his question of privilege. I agree that perhaps it is not always cricket to mention the absence of fellow members of parliament. The hon. member may have a grievance on that basis but I do not think that this grievance can be brought to the attention of the House as a question of privilege.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. LAMBERT (BELLECHASSE)-OBJECTION TO QUESTION ASKED BY LIBERAL MEMBER
Permalink

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

RAILWAY ACT


Mr. ]ohn L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-199, to amend the Railway Act (deviations, changes and removal).


?

Some hon. Members:

Explain.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR MANDATORY PUBLIC HEARINGS ON APPLICATIONS TO REMOVE STATION AGENTS OR CARETAKERS
Permalink
NDP

John Leroy Skoberg

New Democratic Party

Mr. Skoberg:

Mr. Speaker, at the present time section 120 of the Railway Act does not provide for a mandatory public hearing to be held when railway companies make application to remove any regular station agent, caretaker-agent or caretaker. This amendment would provide for the requirement of a public hearing. At the same time there is no requirement for the type of service that must be provided by the railway's personal contact. This amendment would spell out the services to be included by such company representative if permission has been granted for the removal of a regular station agent, caretaker-agent or caretaker. All that this proposed bill would do-

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR MANDATORY PUBLIC HEARINGS ON APPLICATIONS TO REMOVE STATION AGENTS OR CARETAKERS
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. Standing Order 68(2) permits a very brief explanation. I believe this is what the hon. member has now done. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR MANDATORY PUBLIC HEARINGS ON APPLICATIONS TO REMOVE STATION AGENTS OR CARETAKERS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR MANDATORY PUBLIC HEARINGS ON APPLICATIONS TO REMOVE STATION AGENTS OR CARETAKERS
Permalink

Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed. On the order: Government Notices of Motions.


NDP

John Edward Broadbent

New Democratic Party

Mr. Broadbent:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw, wished to raise a motion under Standing Order 43 but he missed the opportunity. I wonder whether we could have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR MANDATORY PUBLIC HEARINGS ON APPLICATIONS TO REMOVE STATION AGENTS OR CARETAKERS
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Is there unanimous consent?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR MANDATORY PUBLIC HEARINGS ON APPLICATIONS TO REMOVE STATION AGENTS OR CARETAKERS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR MANDATORY PUBLIC HEARINGS ON APPLICATIONS TO REMOVE STATION AGENTS OR CARETAKERS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

No.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR MANDATORY PUBLIC HEARINGS ON APPLICATIONS TO REMOVE STATION AGENTS OR CARETAKERS
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Perhaps the hon. member would not mind having the matter stand until tomorrow, and I will look in

May 2, 1972

Inquiries of the Ministry

his direction when we reach the item "'motions" in our proceedings.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR MANDATORY PUBLIC HEARINGS ON APPLICATIONS TO REMOVE STATION AGENTS OR CARETAKERS
Permalink

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-INFORMATION


RESPECTING EFFECTS ON CANADIAN ECONOMY AND AMERICAN COMPANIES MAKING USE THEREOF

May 2, 1972