September 20, 1973

PRIVILEGE

MR. HALES-ALLEGED INCORRECT INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY MINISTER RESPECTING LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM

PC

Alfred Dryden Hales

Progressive Conservative

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. HALES-ALLEGED INCORRECT INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY MINISTER RESPECTING LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

The grievance raised by the hon. member for Wellington is one which was raised before in the House, last week, I believe, by the hon. member for Yukon when he very forcefully objected to or took issue with the statement of the minister. The matter was considered at that time. I suggest to the hon. member that there is not a prima facie case of privilege. He proposes a motion. I suggest to him that this is a substantive motion and not a privileged motion. In the circumstances I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that this is not the kind of matter that the House should consider at this time.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. HALES-ALLEGED INCORRECT INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY MINISTER RESPECTING LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM
Permalink

RECOGNITION OF GROUPS OF VISITORS IN GALLERIES- RULING BY MR. SPEAKER

PC

Steve Eugene Paproski

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence but today is an historic day for this chamber as we have here 42 senior citizens from Edmonton Centre who are visiting parliament. I feel that when people travel 2,400 miles just to see the way parliament operates-

Topic:   RECOGNITION OF GROUPS OF VISITORS IN GALLERIES- RULING BY MR. SPEAKER
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. I appreciate the position of the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, who at this time wants to bring to the attention of the House the presence of very distinguished citizens from his constituency. I am sure all members are pleased to see them here, but at the same time I suggest to the hon. member it is extremely bad practice to do what he is attempting to do at this time. Every day there are distinguished visitors in the members' gallery and in my gallery, visitors from my constituency and other members' constituencies, but if we were to embark on a practice of recognizing visits by senior citizens, junior citizens, or any other groups visiting the House of Commons we might spend most of our day bringing to the attention of the House the presence in the galleries of our distinguished constituents. After what I heard yesterday during the question period that might be an improvement-

September 20, 1973

Indian Affairs

Topic:   RECOGNITION OF GROUPS OF VISITORS IN GALLERIES- RULING BY MR. SPEAKER
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   RECOGNITION OF GROUPS OF VISITORS IN GALLERIES- RULING BY MR. SPEAKER
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

-but, all this having been said, I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, who is a well liked member of the House, will appreciate the position of the Chair.

Topic:   RECOGNITION OF GROUPS OF VISITORS IN GALLERIES- RULING BY MR. SPEAKER
Permalink

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT


On the order: Motions: April 4, 1973-Mr. Howard: That the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on April 4, 1973, be concurred in.


NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

Yesterday when the hon. member for Skeena proposed to move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on April 4, 1973, be concurred in, the Chair suggested that it might be irregular to proceed with the said motion at that time. With the assistance provided by the hon. member himself in his submission to the House, the Chair has given careful consideration to this matter. It would appear to me that not only is the rule of anticipation involved here but there is also the application of certain Standing Orders which I suggest bear on this case.

The hon. member has obviously given serious thought to the procedural difficulty involved. It seems to me that in the submission of his argument he has agreed with the proposition that his motion anticipated the order for the adjourned debate on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Incidentally, the records indicate that the hon. member for Skeena seconded that motion. That in itself introduces a further complication which I will merely mention and on which I will not make a ruling.

As the hon. member pointed out yesterday, the Chair, in interpreting the rule on anticipation, should have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time. I would suggest that the probability of resuming debate on a motion by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is still an open question. The Chair must assume that that probability is still open.

In my view, consideration of two specific Standing Orders touching upon the procedural question is relevant at this time. Standing Order 45(2) reads as follows:

When a debate on any motion made prior to the reading of the Orders of the Day is adjourned or interrupted, the order for resumption of the same shall be transferred to and considered under government orders.

That Standing Order was permanently enacted in 1968 on the same occasion that the House, in the words of the hon. member for Skeena, "embarked upon a new structure and concept regarding the operation of the standing committees." The Chair cannot assume that the committees and the House as well were not fully aware at the time of the effect of the provisions of that Standing Order.

Finally, the Chair must refer to section 2 of Standing Order 18 which reads as follows:

Government orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the government determines.

The provisions of that Standing Order, I suggest, are so clear and explicit that they preclude the Chair or any member other than those in the government from designating any government order to be taken up at any sitting.

As stated in citation 13 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition:

... An express order of the House, whether standing or occasional, supersedes every mere usage or precedent. In the absence of any express order "what can or ought to be done by either House of Parliament is best known by the custom and proceedings of parliament in former times."

Without a doubt the anticipation rule must be taken into account as a guide in our proceedings, but in this case its application must be interpreted in the context of the Standing Orders to which I have referred.

The Chair has no difficulty about the hon. member's motion being allowed to remain on the order paper but I suggest, with respect, to the hon. member that it would be difficult to accept from a procedural standpoint that the motion be put and debated at this time.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
NDP

Frank Howard

New Democratic Party

Mr. Howard:

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might, therefore, with the consent of the House, ask leave to withdraw the motion, saving always the right to reintroduce it at an appropriate time in the future.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

Is this agreed?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink

AGRICULTURE

NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. member for Danforth.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   BEEF-GOVERNMENT POLICIES RESPECTING EXPORTS AND TARIFF-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Permalink
PC

Harold Warren Danforth (Progressive Conservative Party Caucus Chair)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):

Kent-Essex, Mr. Speaker.

I respectfully request leave of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43. The matter is of most urgent and serious concern to all Canadians in general and to the producers of cattle specifically. If the House is sympathetically disposed to grant approval, I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):

That the government policies on the restriction on exports of beef and especially the removal of tariff protection on this commodity entering Canada without a reciprocal agreement with the

September 20, 1973

United States, be referred at the earliest opportunity to the Standing Committee of Agriculture for study and report back to the House.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   BEEF-GOVERNMENT POLICIES RESPECTING EXPORTS AND TARIFF-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

For the record, perhaps I might indicate that the hon. member has not been named. The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Kent-Essex. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 it requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   BEEF-GOVERNMENT POLICIES RESPECTING EXPORTS AND TARIFF-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Permalink

September 20, 1973