June 23, 1975

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

SOCIAL SECURITY

SC

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert

Social Credit

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an important and urgent matter.

As many persons of 60 to 64 years of age, who are not married or recognized as spouses under Bill C-62, are experiencing hardships for lack of a job or adequate income to meet their needs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):

That the House urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to introduce immediately to the House a bill authorizing the federal government to pay persons of 60 to 64 years of age not covered by Bill C-62 a guaranteed annual income and the equivalent of the old age pension plus the supplement.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SOCIAL SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED PAYMENT OF GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME TO PERSONS 60 TO 64-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43.
Permalink
LIB

James Alexander Jerome (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, this motion required unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SOCIAL SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED PAYMENT OF GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME TO PERSONS 60 TO 64-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43.
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Yes.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SOCIAL SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED PAYMENT OF GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME TO PERSONS 60 TO 64-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43.
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

No.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SOCIAL SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED PAYMENT OF GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME TO PERSONS 60 TO 64-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43.
Permalink
LIB

James Alexander Jerome (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   SOCIAL SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED PAYMENT OF GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME TO PERSONS 60 TO 64-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43.
Permalink

NATIONAL PARKS

PC

Thomas Charles Cossitt

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):

Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion arising from a number of representations from the area in which my constituency is located about the fact that federal parks are charging full fees to senior citizens whereas the government of Ontario is allowing senior citizens free entry to provincial parks in the same area.

I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):

That the government of Canada should follow the example set by the government of Ontario in regard to the admission of senior citizens to national parks in Canada, namely that the government admit all senior citizens free of charge to national parks similar to the complimentary entrance permitted by the government of Ontario to all provincial parks.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL PARKS
Sub-subtopic:   PROPOSED FREE ENTRY FOR SENIOR CITIZENS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
LIB

James Alexander Jerome (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

The motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL PARKS
Sub-subtopic:   PROPOSED FREE ENTRY FOR SENIOR CITIZENS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL PARKS
Sub-subtopic:   PROPOSED FREE ENTRY FOR SENIOR CITIZENS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

No.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL PARKS
Sub-subtopic:   PROPOSED FREE ENTRY FOR SENIOR CITIZENS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

FISHERIES

PC

Robert Lorne Stanfield (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of State (Fisheries) arising out of the apparent refusal of the ICNAF countries to accept the Canadian proposal for reducing the ICNAF quotas by 40 per cent. I ask whether the minister and his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, have any contingency plan to set in motion, in view of the rejection of the Canadian proposal.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   FISHERIES
Sub-subtopic:   REJECTION BY ICNAF OF PROPOSAL TO REDUCE QUOTAS BY FORTY PER CENT-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Permalink
LIB

Roméo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries))

Liberal

Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):

Mr. Speaker, the officials attending the meeting have not had a chance to assess the consequences of the disappointing results of the conference. So far I have not had the chance to be briefed on the session. We are not satisfied with the results. We have asked for a meeting to take place early in the fall. We have obtained agreement for the meeting, which will take place very probably in Canada. We will be discussing this in the days to come, when the delegation returns.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   FISHERIES
Sub-subtopic:   REJECTION BY ICNAF OF PROPOSAL TO REDUCE QUOTAS BY FORTY PER CENT-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Permalink
PC

Robert Lorne Stanfield (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Stanfield:

A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the minister did not intend to leave the impression that he is a little casual about this. What does the minister propose to do to assess the matter immediately, and has he any reason to believe that a conference in the fall will be more successful than the conference which has just failed? Specifically, why does the minister think that the fall conference will be more successful?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   FISHERIES
Sub-subtopic:   REJECTION BY ICNAF OF PROPOSAL TO REDUCE QUOTAS BY FORTY PER CENT-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Permalink
LIB

Roméo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries))

Liberal

Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):

Mr. Speaker, I am not casual about this; on the contrary, I am deadly serious.

6990

June 23, 1975

Oral Questions

The request to reduce foreign fishing efforts by 40 per cent is one which some governments did not feel they could go along with right away. However, we made our case and we believe that when these governments have had a chance to reflect on it, we shall gain more support. There is already some support for our proposal. The conference was not a total failure; on the other hand, I would certainly not describe it as a total success.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   FISHERIES
Sub-subtopic:   REJECTION BY ICNAF OF PROPOSAL TO REDUCE QUOTAS BY FORTY PER CENT-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Permalink

SUGGESTED FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ON QUOTAS-POSSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF JURISDICTION TO 200-MILE LIMIT

PC

Donald W. Munro

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State (Fisheries).

Would he be prepared to call a federal-provincial conference now for the formulation of joint and common policy about the refusal of member nations of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries to accept a quota reduction as proposed by the Canadian delegate in Edinborough?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SUGGESTED FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ON QUOTAS-POSSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF JURISDICTION TO 200-MILE LIMIT
Permalink

June 23, 1975