Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):

Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson):

That whereas a lawsuit by one airport limousine driver against his employer for wrongful dismissal has brought to light the common practice of owners requiring drivers to pay for the right to drive, at fees up to $55,000, and to pay for the car and all associated costs; and whereas the drivers are led to believe they have bought the airport plate thereby, in contravention of the terms of issuance, and failure to pay results in imposed radio silence and death threats; therefore this House directs the minister to commence a full-scale inquiry into all aspects of ground transportation at Toronto international airport in order to properly protect the public interest and well-being and safety of the drivers.

Madam Speaker:

Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed.

No.

Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):

Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.

Considering that the forced implementation of metrication in the county of Peterborough last summer had a negative effect on consumers and store owners, because of the difficulty tourists had in adapting to the new system, and due to the fact that the subject of metric conversion has never been introduced in the House of Commons in the form of a bill so that the views of the people of Canada may be heard, and considering that metrication in Canada is already seven to nine years ahead of metric conversion in the United States, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone):

That no further implementation take place in the retail sector in Canada until full parliamentary debate on the issue occurs and until all Canadian citizens have been given an opportunity to make their feelings on metrication known to the government.

Madam Speaker:

Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed.

No.

Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):

Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.

In light of the evidence that conclusively shows the implementation of the Garrison diversion unit in North Dakota in its present form will cause an estimated $6 million worth of damage annually to the Manitoba commercial fishing industry, and that it will force Manitoba municipalities to pay tens of thousands of dollars each year for the chemical treatment of their water supplies, and in light of the mounting pressure on United States President Jimmy Carter to approve this project, despite the proven harmful environmental effects on Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):

That this House instruct the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he should firmly and forcefully remind his American counterpart, during their discussions tomorrow, that the Canadian government expects the United States to honour its commitment under the Boundary Waters Treaty not to pollute to the injury of Canadian health or property and, further, the minister should advise Mr. Vance that the Canadian government is not prepared to accept a Garrison diversion project that permits damaging interbasin biological transfers.

Madam Speaker:

The presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed.

No.

April 22, 1980

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):

Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, concerning the fact that two years' salary, amounting in total to approximately $150,000, was paid to Michael Pitfield when his position terminated as Secretary to the Cabinet following the May 22, 1979, election and he is now back in that position. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):

That the Prime Minister clarify forthwith to the House whether or not Mr. Pitfield, on his return to the position of Secretary to the Cabinet and Clerk of the Privy Council after only nine months absence therefrom, refunded to the public treasury, as one would expect, the unused portion of the two years' salary payment; and, finally, the Prime Minister also clarify whether or not Mr. Pitfield, as required by conflict of interest guidelines, declared the existence of a consulting firm known as N. Michael Pitfield Investments Limited, or at least the fact whether he has or is in the process of divesting himself of any interest in such a company.

Madam Speaker:

Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?