It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Order of Business.
Could the Leader of the House give us any information about the intentions regarding the sittings this week and next week?
I indicated yesterday that it was hoped to conclude the business this week but, if necessary, we will sit next week. The intention was that we would sit today and tomorrow and, if necessary, on Friday to conclude.
I take it that the Leader of the House is referring to the business of the House, namely, those matters which Members of the House had thought to be of sufficient importance to put down motions and continually press for them to be taken.
I am referring to the Government business which is on the Order Paper.
When will motions be taken in the New Year? Before adjourning for the Summer Recess we were given to understand that we would have an opportunity for a full discussion on the Common Market at the start of this session. This has not been done and I would press that we should be given an opportunity very early during the next session for a full-dress discussion on the Common Market.
Arising out of what has been said in regard to this postponement of motions that it had been hoped would be taken, what is the position? We had an agreement among the Members of the House in regard to the manner in which motions would be discussed. In the opinion of many Members of the House this agreement has been departed from, to the discredit of the House. Is it proposed that a new arrangement should be made, that the original arrangement should be implemented, or are we back to a position where there is no policy and no arrangement at all?
The original arrangement was satisfactory. If the House is prepared to continue to use it I am prepared to do my best to give it effect.
Surely the Leader of the House cannot be serious when he says that the arrangement was satisfactory? My recollection of that arrangement was that we should meet every Thursday to discuss the motions and yet no motion has been taken since the Easter Recess. On the question of the motion regarding the EEC, could we have any indication if that will be taken early in the New Year, perhaps in January? Otherwise, there are many things pertaining to agriculture in the EEC that could possibly be dealt with in this debate. I should like to avoid duplication in debates but if there is not a reasonable prospect of our reaching the EEC motion in the next few weeks I will have to deal fairly fully with it this afternoon.
The Senator is a little late in this matter; Professor Quinlan was anxious for the motion on the EEC before now. Senator McDonald misinterprets the terms of the agreement. We did not agree that we would meet every Thursday to discuss motions. We agreed that when the Minister would be available on a Thursday we would then meet for discussions.
This has proved tantamount to not meeting.
That was the agreement.
The agreement was that we would meet on each Wednesday and that on the following morning we would take a motion. This has not been done.
The Chair would suggest that this matter of the arrangement as regards the motions might best be discussed outside the House.
Would the Chair be willing to call a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges since there seems to be a very sharp division in the House regarding the interpretation of the agreement and the implementation of the agreement?
That matter will be considered.