May 24, 1978

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL REVISE POSITION RESPECTING QUEBEC SALES TAX-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

NDP

Lorne Edmund Nystrom (Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):

Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an important and urgent matter.

In view of the statement made last Sunday by the leader of the Quebec Liberal party to the effect that stubbornness of the federal government in the dispute over the sales tax has increased the popular appeal of the independent option of the Quebec government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):

That this House request the government to alter its policies which, in addition to being unfair, also do considerable harm to the unity of the country, and that it agree to revise its current position with regard to the sales tax.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL REVISE POSITION RESPECTING QUEBEC SALES TAX-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
LIB

James Alexander Jerome (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL REVISE POSITION RESPECTING QUEBEC SALES TAX-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL REVISE POSITION RESPECTING QUEBEC SALES TAX-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

No.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL REVISE POSITION RESPECTING QUEBEC SALES TAX-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink

TRANSPORT

PC

John Carnell Crosbie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):

Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the m. v. William Carson sank off Labrador on June 3, 1977, almost 12 months ago, with the result that 37 passengers and the crew of 91 lost their possessions and various cargo owners lost cargo totalling 1,000 tons, all of which resulted in severe financial loss and hardship to passengers and cargo owners, particularly in Labrador, and especially because CN Marine refused to pay for the losses of passengers and cargo owners, and in view of the fact that the hon. Mr. Justice Noel, as a commissioner, has now found that due to the default of the operator of the vessel, CN railway company, and her master the sinking was caused by ice penetrating the hull, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):

That the government instruct CN Marine to pay immediately to the passengers and crew on board the m. v. William Carson on June 3 and to the owners of cargo their losses, costs and expenses immediately so they will be spared further hardship, together with interest on amounts due since last June 3, and that the government advise CN Marine that it will be held responsible financially to the government for the costs involved to the government and taxpayers of Canada in the loss of the said vessel.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   TRANSPORT
Sub-subtopic:   COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES INCURRED IN SINKING OF M. V. "WILLIAM CARSON"-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
LIB

James Alexander Jerome (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   TRANSPORT
Sub-subtopic:   COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES INCURRED IN SINKING OF M. V. "WILLIAM CARSON"-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   TRANSPORT
Sub-subtopic:   COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES INCURRED IN SINKING OF M. V. "WILLIAM CARSON"-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

No.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   TRANSPORT
Sub-subtopic:   COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES INCURRED IN SINKING OF M. V. "WILLIAM CARSON"-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink

NATIONAL DEFENCE

PC

Allan Bruce McKinnon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):

Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Some two weeks ago, in answer to a question, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson)

stated in the House:

We do not have any nuclear weapons nor would they be deployed on our soil.

One week later he said he never answered questions on that subject. But this week he has changed his mind again and is answering questions on the subject outside the House, contradicting his original answer which misled the House. I would, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):

That this House direct the Minister of National Defence to make a statement on motions clearly setting out the truth about Canada's nuclear position and explaining to the House his misleading remarks on May 8 and 15.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Sub-subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POSITION ON NUCLEAR ARMS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
LIB

James Alexander Jerome (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Under the terms of Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Sub-subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POSITION ON NUCLEAR ARMS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Sub-subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POSITION ON NUCLEAR ARMS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

No.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Sub-subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POSITION ON NUCLEAR ARMS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON DEPLOYMENT OF NEUTRON BOMB-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

NDP

Francis Andrew Brewin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the world disarmament conference is taking place at the present time and that the question of the production of the neutron bomb will be on the agenda, and since it has been suggested by the press that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) proposes to disclose the Canadian view on this question at the conference, I ask consent to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on an urgent matter of pressing necessity. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):

That this House direct the government forthwith to disclose to the House of Commons, the proper forum for such disclosures, what is the attitude of the Canadian government as a member of NATO and of the international society to the production and deployment of this bomb.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POLICY ON DEPLOYMENT OF NEUTRON BOMB-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
LIB

James Alexander Jerome (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Presentation of such a motion would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POLICY ON DEPLOYMENT OF NEUTRON BOMB-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POLICY ON DEPLOYMENT OF NEUTRON BOMB-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

No.

May 24, 1978

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POLICY ON DEPLOYMENT OF NEUTRON BOMB-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink

May 24, 1978