July 21, 1975


Motion agreed to.


FISHERIES

PRESENTATION OF PETITION FROM NEWFOUNDLAND

PC

Walter C. Carter

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from the province of Newfoundland in which the petitioners request that the government take unilateral action to protect Canadian marine resources out to the edge of the continental shelf.

Topic:   FISHERIES
Subtopic:   PRESENTATION OF PETITION FROM NEWFOUNDLAND
Sub-subtopic:   REQUESTING GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT MARINE RESOURCES TO EDGE OF CONTINENTAL SHELF
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Motion to Adjourn

Topic:   FISHERIES
Subtopic:   PRESENTATION OF PETITION FROM NEWFOUNDLAND
Sub-subtopic:   REQUESTING GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT MARINE RESOURCES TO EDGE OF CONTINENTAL SHELF
Permalink
PC

Walter C. Carter

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Carter:

I might add that the petition is signed by the Premier of the province, the Hon. Frank D. Moores, by the leader of the official opposition in the Newfoundland legislature, Mr. Ed. Roberts, the leader of the recently formed Liberal Reform Party, the Hon. J. R. Smallwood, and by the president of the Newfoundland Fishermen's and Allied Workers' Union, Mr. Richard Cashin, a former member of this House. I might also say that to get those four gentlemen to agree with each other long enough to put their names on a single piece of paper is in itself quite a feat, and parliament should recognize that fact by their congratulations.

Topic:   FISHERIES
Subtopic:   PRESENTATION OF PETITION FROM NEWFOUNDLAND
Sub-subtopic:   REQUESTING GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT MARINE RESOURCES TO EDGE OF CONTINENTAL SHELF
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   FISHERIES
Subtopic:   PRESENTATION OF PETITION FROM NEWFOUNDLAND
Sub-subtopic:   REQUESTING GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT MARINE RESOURCES TO EDGE OF CONTINENTAL SHELF
Permalink
LIB

James Alexander Jerome (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

The House is prepared to congratulate the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) by receiving the petition.

Topic:   FISHERIES
Subtopic:   PRESENTATION OF PETITION FROM NEWFOUNDLAND
Sub-subtopic:   REQUESTING GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT MARINE RESOURCES TO EDGE OF CONTINENTAL SHELF
Permalink
PC

Walter C. Carter

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Carter:

Would Your Honour allow me to state the number of people who signed the petition? It is in excess of 100,000.

Topic:   FISHERIES
Subtopic:   PRESENTATION OF PETITION FROM NEWFOUNDLAND
Sub-subtopic:   REQUESTING GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT MARINE RESOURCES TO EDGE OF CONTINENTAL SHELF
Permalink

MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 FISHERIES ALLEGED REFUSAL OF GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT MARINE RESOURCES TO EDGE OF CONTINENTAL SHELF

PC

Walter C. Carter

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, under the provisions of Standing Order 26, to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the refusal of the government to take any firm action, including unilateral action, to protect Canadian resources to the edge of our continental shelf against the plundering of foreign nationals operating off our coasts.

Topic:   MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 FISHERIES ALLEGED REFUSAL OF GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT MARINE RESOURCES TO EDGE OF CONTINENTAL SHELF
Permalink
LIB

James Alexander Jerome (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with the provisions of the Standing Order, the hon. member has been good enough to give the Chair notice of his intention to bring forward this emergency motion. He will be aware, as will all hon. members, that the subject which is the content of the motion is one which has been debated a number of times since he and I became colleagues in the House of Commons and, I presume, for many years before that. It has been the subject of considerable debate, difficulty and disagreement. There has been discussion about the acceptability of different limits. The matter has been the subject of controversy at several Law of the Sea conferences. It is one of great importance and concern, but because of its continuing nature, its complexity and the extent to which it has been discussed in this House and by other distinguished bodies, I would have to consider it one which cannot be the subject of a motion at this time under Standing Order 26.

Order Paper Questions

Topic:   MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 FISHERIES ALLEGED REFUSAL OF GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT MARINE RESOURCES TO EDGE OF CONTINENTAL SHELF
Permalink

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


July 21, 1975


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER


(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


LIB

Charles Robert Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works; Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology)

Liberal

Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 32, 1,838, 2,504, 2,520, 2,575, 2,592, 2,595, 2,790, 2,794, 2,806, 2,865, and 2,866.

If question No. 2,695 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Permalink
PC

Mr. Cossitt

Progressive Conservative

1. In regard to the trip by the Prime Minister commencing April 25, 1974 to certain places in Ontario including the Ontario Liberal Party annual meeting in Sudbury (a) what specific government aircraft were used for any aspects of transportation and, in each case, what is the cost per hour of keeping such an aircraft in the air including fuel, salaries and all other factors (b) where did each flight begin and terminate and what are the names and functions of all persons who travelled in the plane carrying the Prime Minister and in any other accompanying government-owned aircraft?

2. Will the Prime Minister discontinue using government-owned aircraft at public expense for purposes of political or personal travel and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   TRIPS BY PRIME MINISTER IN ONTARIO-USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT
Permalink
LIB

Mitchell William Sharp (President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):

I am informed by the Departments of National Defence, Transport and the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices as follows: In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned: 1. (a) Three CH 135 utility helicopters were used at a cost of $415. per flying hour per helicopter including fuel, salaries and all other factors, (b) The schedule to various localities in Ontario was as follows:

Leave Arrive

Ottawa 25 Apr. 9.15 a.m. Toronto 11.20 a.m.Toronto 25 Apr. 4.23 p.m. Hamilton 5.20 p.m.Hamilton 25 Apr. 10.00 p.m. Toronto 22.40 p.m.Toronto 26 Apr. 1.15 p.m. Woodstock 3.35 p.m.Woodstock 26 Apr. 4.10 p.m. Sarnia 5.05 p.m.Sarnia 26 Apr. 5.55 p.m. Toronto 8.00 p.m.Toronto 27 Apr. 10.00 a.m. Ottawa 12.05 p.m.

In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned: 1. (a) Viscount CF-GXK. Cost, $750 per hour.

(b) Originated

Ottawa

Hamilton

Toronto

Sarnia

Sudbury

Terminated

Hamilton

Toronto

Sarnia

Sudbury

Ottawa.

In so far as the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices are concerned: 1. (b) The Prime Minister, appropriate staff and press.

2. No. (a) Not applicable, (b) The Prime Minister travels in government owned aircraft as a matter of policy in order to minimize inconvenience to the travelling public and for security reasons.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   TRIPS BY PRIME MINISTER IN ONTARIO-USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT
Permalink
LIB

Mr. Herbert

Liberal

1. Has the government House Leader discussed recently with the Leader or House Leader from a minority Opposition Party the possibility of introducing legislation to ensure the same degree of Canadian autonomy in union control that has been sought in resource development and, if so, with whom and on what date?

2. Is the government studying the alleged intervention by the US parent in the United Aircraft labour dispute?

3. Is the government studying the alleged intervention by the US controlled international union in the Mount Wright labour dispute?

4. To what extent, if any, has the operation of Canada manpower centres been circumvented by the employers or employees in the disputes?

5. Is a suitably qualified unemployed person disqualified from unemployment insurance benefits for refusing to accept employment opportunities in companies and on sites where there is an existing labour dispute?

6. (a) To what extent does provincial legislation render inoperative, in whole or in part, the federal regulations to unemployed persons (b) is any new federal legislation in this field presently under consideration?

7. Does the government intend to prevent any foreign intervention in the sale of Canadian exports?

8. Does the government intend to prevent any foreign intervention in the construction, organization and administration of Canadian labour unions?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   CANADIAN AUTONOMY IN UNION CONTROL
Permalink

July 21, 1975