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 do not know that 1 agree altogether with that. 1 would have thought there are some questions that could have been discussed in that committee, such as some that were discussed in this debate, where there might have been a better opportunity for an exchange of views, for bringing in people to bring testimony, and so forth, purely on questions of external affairs and not only on national defence. In making these comments, you will see that I am following the tradition of being non-partisan. I do not mind raising questions of this kind which 1 think are important to the functioning of this institution.

Another reason for the relevant ineffectiveness is that the Canadian side of interparliamentary associations, or at least the elected members from this side, do not report to anybody, either to the House or to a standing committee. Recently I had the experience of being co-chairman of the Canada European Parliamentary Association which underlined the curious position of the Canadian side. With the approval of Mr. Speaker, a subcommittee was formed to examine more closely relations between Canada and the EEC with respect to nuclear energy.

At the conclusion of our subcommittee discussions which took place first in Brussels and then in Ottawa, the European side insisted upon the preparation of a communique or a report which they wished to make to their parent body, the European parliament, so we agreed to the preparation of a report-but I had nowhere to send it. I gave it to Mr. Speaker, who was the

December 20, 1977

External Affairs

only authority I could find who could receive this report. I sent copies for information purposes to the committee, which is now defunct but one will understand the problems which arose. This was an important report which should have been referred to a standing committee for discussion. At least it ought to have appeared in print. As it is now, it resides in Mr. Speaker's hands and in the hands of the members of the committee for their information, but I have no machinery for its transmission.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Full View Permalink