June 8, 1972

IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. member on a question of privilege.

Topic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MOTION TO ADJOURN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Mr. La Salle@

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to ask you if this change requires the unanimous consent of the House and then, with your permission, I shall explain why I rise on a question of privilege. First, I would like to know if this change requires the unanimous consent of the House.

Topic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MOTION TO ADJOURN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Of course, the changes suggested can only be brought in with hon. members' consent since the measure which would be studied tomorrow has already been announced and is on the order paper. It is only by agreement between hon. members, as I have just pointed out, that it would be possible to change the order of business to be put before the House tomorrow.

Topic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MOTION TO ADJOURN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Mr. La Salle@

In that case, Mr. Speaker, considering the numerous interventions, charges and countercharges made on each side of the House, and the entertainment the parties provided for one another-I think, for instance, of the motions moved this evening, some more serious than others-considering also that at the very last minute we are trying to give the House the prestige it ought to have at all times, I don't think we can get away with it that easily and, as far as I am concerned, I don't accept these changes.

Topic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MOTION TO ADJOURN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

There is not unanimous consent. My suggestion is that we can still call it ten o'clock. Very soon it will be ten o'clock in any event, and I would hope that there could be consultation about tomorrow.

Topic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MOTION TO ADJOURN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
NDP

David Lewis

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lewis:

Mr. Speaker-

Topic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MOTION TO ADJOURN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. member for York South.

Topic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MOTION TO ADJOURN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
NDP

David Lewis

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lewis:

-on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and it is probably my ignorance of the rules, but I assumed that if we offered to give up our day, the day assigned to the New Democratic Party, not only tomorrow but for good, so the government could use it as its day for the purpose mentioned, then with great respect I do not see how any other member of the House-

Topic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MOTION TO ADJOURN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MOTION TO ADJOURN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
NDP

David Lewis

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lewis:

I respectfully submit that no member of this House could interfere with that kind of arrangement if the government agreed with it and we offered our day.

Topic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MOTION TO ADJOURN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. I hesitate to disagree with the hon. member who puts his case so well, but I have reached the conclusion that he is not completely right. When the hon. member speaks of "his day" or of "our day" he speaks, let me remind him, of an allotted day which belongs to the House and not to any member, any number of members or any party.

If the hon. member will look at the order paper he will see a specific motion, and there is no way that we can change the order paper without unanimous consent of the House. It seems to me it would be much simpler if there were further consideration of the matter after ten o'clock,

25319-3i

June 8, 1972

Business of the House

when perhaps sweet reason might prevail. In my capacity as a member of one of the independent parties, I might have consultation with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).

Topic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MOTION TO ADJOURN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might make a suggestion which I still think would solve the problem. If there is not unanimous consent to change the order, then surely tomorrow when orders of the day are called and the order in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is read, if the hon. member declines to move the motion then the day will become a government day. I suggest that the acting government House leader could call the order in the name of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle).

Topic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MOTION TO ADJOURN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

I might agree with this, of course, but we would have to wait until tomorrow and see if the hon. member is still of the same disposition. Perhaps, in view of this possibility, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) might agree that it would be easier if we all were agreed on that point; that might facilitate matters.

The hon. member for Joliette recognizes that it is possible, even without the unanimous consent of the House, to follow the order of business which has just been announced: however, under the circumstances, it might be better for hon. members to agree to follow the order of business announced for tomorrow. I wonder if the hon. member for Joliette has reconsidered the suggestion I made a moment ago.

Topic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MOTION TO ADJOURN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Mr. La Salle@

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I have reconsidered this matter; if tomorrow the House finds it possible to change the order of business without my consent, I shall ask hon. members to do so, but I will not change my mind tonight.

sje * *

Topic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MOTION TO ADJOURN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

WEEKLY STATEMENT

PC

Thomas Miller Bell (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Progressive Conservative Party)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Bell:

Mr. Speaker, just before ten o'clock may I ask a question that is traditional on Thursdays. Could the

acting House leader tell us what the business of the House is to be?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   WEEKLY STATEMENT
Permalink
PC

Robert Jardine McCleave

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McCleave:

Give us all the options.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   WEEKLY STATEMENT
Permalink
LIB

Donald Stovel Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources)

Liberal

Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):

Mr. Speaker, next Monday, if we complete routine proceedings, and indeed next Tuesday, we will take the two remaining days of the budget debate. Wednesday next and also Friday will be opposition days. On Thursday next the first order of business to be considered will be Bill C-170, the FISP bill, to be followed by Bill C-209, the financial mechanisms bill with respect to housing. That is to be followed, if the previous bill is dealt with, by Bill C-204, the Wheat Board bill. If that is dealt with, it will be followed by Bill C-203, the bill respecting the representation commissioner. This order, of course, is subject to revision on that particular day after the usual consultations between the parties.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   WEEKLY STATEMENT
Permalink
SC

André-Gilles Fortin

Social Credit

Mr. Fortin:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the minister who acts on behalf of the President of the Privy Council could advise us whether he is waiting until he meets the house leaders before announcing the date of the next opposition day reserved for the Social Credit party.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   WEEKLY STATEMENT
Permalink

June 8, 1972