Mitchell William SHARP

SHARP, The Hon. Mitchell William, P.C., C.C., B.A., D.Sc., LL.D.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Eglinton (Ontario)
Birth Date
May 11, 1911
Deceased Date
March 19, 2004
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Sharp
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=0ae975c1-8187-4ab9-b0ff-dfe9da639543&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
businessman, economist

Parliamentary Career

April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
LIB
  Eglinton (Ontario)
  • Minister of Trade and Commerce (April 22, 1963 - January 3, 1966)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
LIB
  Eglinton (Ontario)
  • Minister of Trade and Commerce (April 22, 1963 - January 3, 1966)
  • Minister of Finance and Receiver General (November 11, 1965 - December 17, 1965)
  • Minister of Finance and Receiver General (December 18, 1965 - April 19, 1968)
  • Secretary of State for External Affairs (April 20, 1968 - August 7, 1974)
June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
LIB
  Eglinton (Ontario)
  • Secretary of State for External Affairs (April 20, 1968 - August 7, 1974)
October 30, 1972 - May 9, 1974
LIB
  Eglinton (Ontario)
  • Secretary of State for External Affairs (April 20, 1968 - August 7, 1974)
July 8, 1974 - March 26, 1979
LIB
  Eglinton (Ontario)
  • Secretary of State for External Affairs (April 20, 1968 - August 7, 1974)
  • Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (August 8, 1974 - September 13, 1976)
  • President of the Privy Council (August 8, 1974 - September 13, 1976)
  • Liberal Party House Leader (August 8, 1974 - September 13, 1976)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 2334)


April 14, 1978

Mr. Sharp:

Yes.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Full View Permalink

March 22, 1978

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Eglinton):

Mr. Speaker, during the discussion in the standing committee on this matter I raised some objection to this proposed motion, both on the ground that it did probably impose a charge on the public and also because I did not think a percentage of this kind, if it were realistic, would be anything but a floor under expenditure. I propose to deal only with the first of these arguments since it touches the question Your Honour has raised.

It seems to me this proposal is only important if it does actually put forward a limitation. So when the hon. member for Yukon says it could be amended to 10 per cent, he does not mean it seriously. It would have no purpose at all, then. The whole purpose is to restrict in some way a charge upon the company. If it is to be a restriction it could very well result in an additional cost over and above the amount payable by the company. This would fall upon the Government of Canada and thus the proposed amendment would require a message which recommended such additional expenditure.

I might add that if the hon. gentleman intended this to be a real restriction he could have amended his proposal very easily by saying, "provided that such costs shall not exceed one per cent" and by adding the words "that would be the cost imposed upon the company."

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   NORTHERN PIPELINE ACT
Full View Permalink

February 17, 1978

Mr. Sharp:

The hon. member's mind is closed.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Full View Permalink

February 3, 1978

Mr. Sharp:

I was sitting listening to the member.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   PRIVILEGE
Full View Permalink

December 20, 1977

Mr. Sharp:

I thank the hon. gentleman. That does not solve all the problems, however, because in this particular case it was a subcommittee; it was not the committee as a whole. There might have been greater ease in getting the House to agree to publish the report of the committee, but this was the report of a subcommittee and this multiplied the problems. However, I thank the hon. gentleman. 1 think his heart is in the same place as mine, he wants to see these procedures improved.

When Canadian parliamentarians meet their counterparts from other countries, they are not participating in negotiations. That is the function of the governments of Canada and the other countries concerned, but by such activities Canadian parliamentarians are engaged in promoting understanding, and this requires them, on the one hand, to be as fully aware as possible of the policies of the Canadian government. On the other hand, they must be able to report their activities and conclusions to the body from which they were selected. After all, these meetings have a purpose other than educating individual members of parliament. 1 therefore suggest that at an appropriate time we ought to look at our standing rules.

At one time the idea that there should be a report to the House was put forward. I am not quite sure whether I would think that desirable, because 1 think it would be resisted very strongly by those who have the responsibility for organizing the work of the House. However, I see no reason why the report should not be referred automatically to a standing committee and provide the basis for further discussion if that is desired.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Full View Permalink