Mr. Speaker, first of all, every time I rise on a question of privilege involving anything to do with fisheries I know it lacks the sex appeal of matters like energy, boxcars and grain. Perhaps this is one of the reasons I am rising on a question of privilege. It must be obvious to Your Honour and all members of the House that there is something really rotten in Denmark when reasonable members-even if hon. members might point a finger at me as once in a while being unreasonable-have to stand in their places and almost abuse the rules of the House in order to elicit information and represent our people in the marine parts of this nation.
Approximately a year ago a number of members rose in the House and presented to Your Honour two points of view. One was in respect of the question period generally speaking, that is, the length of the question period. There were many representations made concerning amendments. The second was the responsibility we felt we had as members to ensure that the frontbench members of the government were answerable each day to legitimate questions asked by members of the House of Commons in view of the fact that this is the only procedure available to us in an attempt to hold the government responsible to the Canadian people.
Today we have had a representation by the hon. member for South Shore in respect of fisheries that was totally
March 7, 1974
ignored. It received no response. Earlier today I made a representation to the minister concerning the Hamilton Banks. There is not a member of the House of Commons who knows about the Hamilton Banks. It is a billion dollar resource but it does not have sex appeal. The minister knows that today the Soviet Union is out there in abundance raping this resource.
Topic: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD