May 16, 1983

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT


The House resumed from Friday, May 13, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benjamin (p. 25389).


LIB

Donald James Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development; Minister of State for Science and Technology)

Liberal

Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):

Mr. Speaker, it is my purpose at this point in the debate to draw the attention of the Members of this House to the importance of this initiative to Canada's economic development as a whole and to regional development.

Canada, as we know, has always been a country of regional particularities and it is the stronger for that. Economically strong regions in association and in co-operation mutually benefit each other, and also, of course, benefit the whole country.

Together with the budget measures announced recently by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), the transportation plan will be one of the main driving forces of our economic recovery today. In addition, and this will be more important in the long run, it will help provide a stimulus for economic development in the years to come. Among all the measures taken by the Government to promote economic recovery and development, the western transportation measure certainly is one of its most important initiatives. Although basically aimed at strengthening the agricultural and transportation sectors of our economy, it also constitutes a multifacetted and long-term measure that will have a positive and durable impact on many other sectors of our economy. It is therefore a vital part of the Government's general strategy for getting Canada out of the worldwide economic recession.

Agriculture and transportation are two of the principal pillars of the Canadian economy. Agricultural production,

traditionally an economic mainstay, now generates 16 per cent of the Gross National Product. It accounts for 10 per cent of Canada's total exports. The efficiency and hard work of Canada's farmers has contributed greatly to our export earnings and contributed also to a situation in which Canadians spend a smaller proportion of their incomes on food than is the case in most other countries. Canadians spend on average less than 17 per cent of their incomes on food, second only to the United States in the entire world.

The transportation sector is equally important. Without a sound, efficient and reliable method of moving Canada's products to markets within the nation and from there to world markets, our country's position as one of the world's great trading nations would be severely undermined.

[DOT] (mo)

It is a historical fact and a fact of some interest that many of the early European explorers came here not so much to find Canada as to find a way around Canada, that is, in search of the Northwest Passage to China and the Orient, in pursuit of trade and of commerce. They failed in that endeavour, or so they thought. But when the first transcontinental passenger train reached Vancouver in 1887, it seemed to many at the time to be at long last the realization of the dreams of those early explorers. The fabled passage had been found, with the added benefit of the riches of a new land to be worked and husbanded. That it was achieved through a combination of water and rail transport rather than through water alone was a matter of minor moment. The important fact was that the great nation-building link had been established at last.

What we are seeking today, some 95 years later, with the western transportation initiative is to achieve a modernization of those passageways of commerce. The goals are the same as they were for the railway builders of the nineteenth century- the furtherance of nation building and the expansion of commerce, both goals in the interest of all Canadians wherever they live and whatever the livelihood they pursue.

The construction of the western railway system was, as I said, both in the interests of commerce and of nation building. Indeed, it was part of the Confederation bargain, necessary for the settlement of the West and for moving its products to markets. Likewise the establishment of the Crow rate in 1897 in return for the building of a new line allowed settlers' goods into the West and grain out at low freight rates. It served its purpose well in its time. But as other speakers have indicated,

May 16, 1983

Western Grain Transportation Act

another major new adjustment is now necessary, in large measure to free the new Canadian West from the constraints and distortions caused by the old rate structure. The western transportation initiative is, therefore, nothing less than a major new phase of Canada's development, which, like many other phases before it, will benefit not only the new West but the nation as a whole.

The general economic benefits of the initiative can be discussed under at least two headings. One consists of those benefits which will flow from the construction activity itself which will be felt over the short and medium term. The other set of benefits, eventually more important for our children and grandchildren, will be the modernization of the transportation system which will contribute to making the Canadian economy much more fit to meet the economic challenges of the twenty-first century.

Let me deal first with the short and medium-term effects. In the short term the initiative means that thousands of construction jobs can be started up almost immediately-laying the rails, building the bridges and tunneling the mountains. This is indeed already under way as a result of interim financial assistance to the railways. There will be an immediate need for steel rail and wooden ties, providing useful work for the steelworkers and forest product workers, too many of whom have been idled by the world recession or forced into other occupations where their acquired skills are not now put to best use. From the wages paid out to them there will be an important multiplier effect which will be felt significantly by those who service these industries, especially in the steel and forest products communities that have been so devastated by the international recession.

But that is just a start. Over the coming decade, as the system is put in place and begins to show results, many sectors of the economy will be called upon to respond. Stronger agricultural production will require more farm machinery, fertilizer and other farm inputs and services. Manufacturers will be called upon to produce the rolling stock to move not only the increased agricultural products but other western resources and products, such as potash, petrochemicals and coal which can be moved confidently to world markets by a reliable transportation system. The railways will be equipping themselves with the most advanced communications, traffic control and safety systems, providing important new opportunities for our high technology industries.

The Government estimates that the $16.5 billion to be spent by the railways between 1983 and 1992 will lead directly and indirectly to $34.8 billion in industrial sales. We estimate that nearly 375,000 person-years of employment will be created during that period with a resulting labour income of $12.2 billion.

I may also add that during this decade, Canadian industry and Canadian workers and production teams in various

industrial sectors will upgrade their skills and develop new ones. Skills, that is, expertise and know-how in the field of new means of transportation and communications, will themselves be a marketable commodity to be exported to many other countries that are obliged to modernize their transportation network.

In this new era, knowledge and information are as valuable as material products, and skills will be a new and important asset to the future of our economy as a whole. However, as 1 said before, Canada is a country made of economic regions that complement and rely on each other, and as a result, we must also consider the many ways in which the economic spinoffs associated with the construction phase of the western transportation measure can be shared among Canada's various regions.

As the Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology, I am particularly interested in this aspect. Although we are speaking of a western transportation measure, the scope of this project is such that all regions can expect to feel the impact on their respective economies.

The proposed distribution of spinoffs is equitable and has the additional advantage of being economically sound, in that it builds on the strength of each region so that all regions are able to contribute to a project that in the final instance, will benefit each and every one.

It is also because this is a western transportation initiative that it is appropriate that the new Canadian West should be the main focus of the economic activity generated by the project. The four Provinces of the West will, when taken together, absorb about 57 per cent of the economic stimulus provided by the anticipated $16.5 billion of expenditures over the next ten years. Over the same period more than 157,000 person-years of employment could be created in the four western Provinces with all the spin-off and ripple effects which, as I have already indicated, augmented payrolls bring in their wake.

British Columbia, with a projected share of one-third of the $16.5 billion to be invested by the railways, will be the main site of construction activity. The major challenge of doubletracking through the mountains will create thousands of contruction jobs. These will be supplemented by jobs created to upgrade terminals, expand existing and build new repair shops. The mining, metal fabrication and forest industries will be significantly affected. It is expected that the new economic activity associated with the western transportation initiative will generate 87,000 person-years in British Columbia alone.

The timely expansion of port facilities on the Pacific coast will ensure that British Columbia is properly poised to move the increased product that will be delivered on a modernized and improved railway system. The federal Government has contributed millions of dollars to the expansion of the bulk coal handling terminal at Roberts Bank in the Lower Mainland and

May 16, 1983

the Ridley Island grain and coal terminals near Prince Rupert. Work on the development of these superports is well under way.

Almost as many person-years, more than 70,000, will be brought into being in the three other Provinces of the Canadian West which will, of course, be the principal ultimate beneficiaries of the initiative as a whole. About one-quarter of the funds to be spent by the railways over the years 1983 to 1992 will be spent, we estimate, in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Alberta's share alone should amount to $2.7 billion. And the largest shares of these expenditures, by the way, should be in metal and wood fabrication, which can be expected to contribute to that diversification of the Alberta economy which is desired by Albertans in general. Manitoba and Saskatchewan will also receive equitable shares of the work to be done. Some 25,000 jobs will be created in these two Provinces in such projects as new repair facilities in Moose Jaw and Winnipeg. Again, as in British Columbia and throughout the nation, there will be related multiplier effects felt by other economic sectors.

The provinces in Central Canada-Ontario and Quebec- will also share in the economic activity resulting from the western transportation measure. We expect that 37 per cent of the $16.5 billion which the railway companies will be spending will go to Ontario and Quebec. In the short and medium term, the main impact on Ontario and Quebec will be the purchase of rails, rolling stock and locomotives. All this will be the result of an increase in railway capacity in Western Canada. Expenditures on transportation equipment in Ontario and in Quebec should account for 60 per cent of a total of over $6 billion that will be spent in these two provinces. During the decade, these expenditures, with those in other sectors, are expected to create 135,000 person-years in Ontario and about 60,000 in Quebec. At this point I would like to say that the entire western transportation measure will have no harmful effects on the distribution and routing of grain to Eastern Canada. Up to now, all major studies have shown that the grain transportation and handling industry will experience healthy growth and will continue to do so within the foreseeable future.

The cumulative economic impact on all four Atlantic Provinces could be 23,500 person-years, half a billion dollars in labour income and total industrial sales of $1.6 billion.

Those are some of the dry statistics of what I regard as the short and medium-term effects of the economic activity to be generated throughout the country by this most important new Government initiative. It is a plan, I believe, which allows all parts of the country to make significant contributions to this vital national project. It will strengthen all of the regions by building on their own strengths and existing natural advantages.

Western Grain Transportation Act

But I would be remiss if I did not also share with you some of my hopes and expectations about the way the western transportation initiative will strengthen the Canadian economy as a whole. This program is much, much more than a job-creation program although it is surely also that. The 375,000 person-years of work it will bring into being, which will be, as I have said, equitably distributed throughout the country, are an important element in the Government's program for Canadian economic recovery from the world-wide recession.

But the western transportation initiative is also an investment in Canada's future. In the first instance, to be sure, it is an investment in the long-term development of the new Canadian West. You have heard this before, of course, Mr. Speaker, but I assure you that it deserves repetition. The existing rate structure for western rail transport distorts the western Canadian economy and locks it unreasonably into patterns of the past, restricting its flexibility in responding to the challenges of the future. The deadhand of the past restrains the West from making the best use of its natural economic advantages. This is a loss not just to the West; it is a loss to us all.

Without an improved western transportation system, these distortions will continue to exist. As long as the existing rate structure remains, the West will be restricted in its ability to diversify its economy. There will be a disincentive to western Canadian farmers to diversify their production.

Western Canada has many other products that will be in growing demand on world markets as the recovery strengthens, presenting an opportunity for the rapid growth and development of the western economy. As always, the geography of Canada means western producers of all products, grain and non-grain, face a major challenge-getting their products to those world markets. Maintaining the Crow rate compounds the problem by leaving our competitive western producers at the end of an inadequate transportation system. The changes to the Crow provide the impetus and financial leverage required to put in place a transportation system that gives western Canada access to world markets and will enhance our image as a reliable, cost-competitive exporter.

The economic development of the entire west is at stake. And the development of the West on its own terms, utilizing its own economic opportunities, making its own economic decisions is something which can only benefit all Canadians.

Too often, economic issues are discussed as if participants were either winners or losers. That has never been, and should never be, the basic principle of our Canadian economic union. This union should be seen as an agreement under which all Canadians are winners within the context of a wise and properly administrated policy. The western transportation measures are one of those wise policies by which all Canadians stand to gain, both now and in the future. That is why these measures deserve the support of all Members of this House.

May 16, 1983

Western Grain Transportation Act

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Ian Gardiner Waddell

New Democratic Party

Mr. Waddell:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister which is more in the nature of a political question. Basically, the Government does not have any Members in western Canada; there are two in Manitoba but none in Saskatchewan or Alberta and these Provinces are going to be fundamentally affected by changes in the Crow rate. Does the Minister not think it is inappropriate for a Government that does not have any representation there to make fundamental changes in the nature of western Canada which will result from the change in the Crow rate?

I am not disputing with the Minister the fact that the Government does have the legal right to do that; of course it has. It is the Government of all of us and is elected as such.

Perhaps I can give an analogy. Suppose this Party or the Conservative Party were the Government with strong representation in western Canada but no Members in Quebec and we were to make some fundamental changes in the economy of Quebec against the wishes of Quebecers. Would that be politically proper? I do not think it would but I would like to ask the Minister to comment on it. Perhaps this is a question which has not been asked about the Crow.

Does the Minister think it is politically right that a Government with virtually no representation in western Canada should make fundamental changes to the economy of western Canada when those changes are opposed by the people there? If we were to do that in Quebec there would be a revolution.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Donald James Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development; Minister of State for Science and Technology)

Liberal

Mr. Johnston:

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is suggesting that a Government which might not be represented in a particular sector of the country should effectively abdicate its mandate to govern the country. That would be to say, I suppose, that if a Party were not to have representation, say, in northern Ontario, which is a very substantial part of Ontario, it could not take steps to improve the economy of that particular region.

This initiative has been the subject of consultation by my colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), who is in the House today, of a kind and to an extent that has perhaps never been seen before. In addition, when the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway says that this is politically a move which he questions, I would point out to him that the Liberal Party, which is the Government, had a very substantial representation from its membership throughout the country which represents the voice of many people in western Canada.

The issue was the subject of a very substantial resolution during the national policy convention which the Liberal Party holds on a regular basis, unlike some other Parties in the House, and that convention was fully supportive of the measures the Government is taking.

I reject out of hand any suggestion that the national Government of this country should abdicate its responsibilities because it is not represented in a particular region. I would suggest that the only way that a Party would never be represented in a region of the country is if it were to leave the

impression with Canadians that the problems of the people in western Canada are not our problems. But they very much are.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Leslie Gordon Benjamin (N.D.P. Caucus Chair)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Benjamin:

Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. gentleman neglected to mention that the Liberal Party in Saskatchewan Alberta and Manitoba-what is left of it-opposed this plan. It made that plain and it made it public. It wanted to keep the statutory freight rate for grain producers.

I would like to ask the Minister, believing in free enterprise as he does, if he considers it proper for a Government to take taxpayers' money and use it as capital for investment in any project, without there being eligible for some kind of return on that investment? In other words, money which has been put into Canadair and a few other projects is money over which Canadians have some ownership, control or some say, whereas in the case of the railways it is a straight gift. Would the Minister not agree that it would make sense for Canada-Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) would stop trying to prime the Minister with an answer, which will not be correct in any event. It shows a lack of courtesy on his part and it certainly indicates that his Cabinet colleague does not know a damned thing about this subject when it has to be whispered into his ear what to say.

Would the Minister not consider it more proper, in return for funds put up for capital, for Canada to take increased equity ownership in Canadian National for the value of that capital which they receive, and equity shares in Canadian Pacific Limited, in order to be eligible for any interest or dividends, or any return on that investment? Why just hand it out so that only Canadian Pacific Limited shareholders will receive the return on the investment made by the taxpayer?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Donald James Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development; Minister of State for Science and Technology)

Liberal

Mr. Johnston:

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at that question coming from the Hon. Member. Apart from his social and economic philosophy, I believe I have a great deal in common with some of the views which he expresses on occasion, but not in this area.

First of all, he suggests that we increase our equity in CN. We own 100 per cent of CN; I do not know how we could increase our equity in CN. If there are dividends paid out by CN, I know of no other recipient of those dividends than the Canadian Government. It may be in part a misunderstanding of the nature of a corporation and the activities it carries on which leads the Hon. Member to express the kind of philosophy which he is putting forward for review by us here today. There are many activities where the federal Government on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer elects to subsidize a particular private sector activity, and in such case we do have a very major return on that investment, Mr. Speaker, in increased jobs and in increased services to the Canadian public. But more importantly, what Hon. Members seem to forget is that the Canadian Government is a 50 per cent partner in every private sector corporation in this country through the fiscal system. That is how our fiscal system works. That is what its

May 16, 1983

purpose is, to allow the Canadian people to participate equitably in the profits which may be realized from any activity in the private sector. I often feel that Elon. Members in the New Democratic Party tend to forget that, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Blaine Allen Thacker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Thacker:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister spoke about winners and losers. I wonder if he would agree with me that the livestock industry and secondary processing industry will surely have to feel that they are losers, because the original Gilson compromise had 81 per cent of the money going to farmers and 19 per cent to the railways, which was designed to do away with the distortion which the Crow rate had come to cause over the years. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) then knocked that down to fifty-fifty and as a result of the representations of the Quebec caucus it went down to 100 per cent to the railways and zero to the producers. Does the Minister not agree that the livestock industry is the loser in that context?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Donald James Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development; Minister of State for Science and Technology)

Liberal

Mr. Johnston:

Mr. Speaker, in the long term everyone is a winner out of this proposed initiative. As I understand the formula, if you take the Lakehead feed grain price and deduct the cost of transportation, certainly it will reduce at a slower pace than might have been the case under the other proposal. However, everyone is a winner under this proposal and the winning is just a little slower than it would have been under the first proposal.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Cyril Lloyd Francis (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order. Last Friday afternoon the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) raised a point of order which maintained that the ten minutes allowed for questions and comments following Members' speeches in the eight-hour period, at second reading of Bills, should not be counted as being a part of that eight-hour period. The Chair heard arguments on Friday afternoon, has considered the arguments raised during the weekend, and is now ready to rule on the matter.

In addition to those arguments, in coming to a conclusion the Chair considered the third report to the House of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, the present Provisional Standing Orders, as well as our practice established since the coming into force of the Provisional Standing Orders.

The third report of the Special Committee sets out specifically a new procedure for second reading of Bills which it splits into three distinct periods, and I quote from that report:

Your Committee recommends that the first three speakers be limited to forty minutes each, allowing for a contribution from the three Parties, but not to be followed by ten-minute exchanges. This would then be followed by speeches of a maximum length of twenty minutes for the first eight hours followed by ten-minute exchanges in each case, if required. Thereafter speeches would be limited to ten minutes without the provisions for exchanges.

The Chair understands that the Special Committee intended the ten-minute period to be included in the eight hours.

Secondly, it seems evident from reading the specific Standing Order 35(2), which sets out expressly these three distinct periods, that the second of those periods in subparagraph (b) provides for a total period of eight hours during which

Western Grain Transportation Act

speeches will be limited to 20 minutes in length and may be followed by ten minutes of questions and comments.

Thirdly, our practice, as developed since the beginning of this year, confirms the intent of the report and the Provisional Standing Orders in that sense. The ten-minute questions, answers and comment period has always been included within the eight hours.

I thank Hon. Members for bringing this matter to the Chair's attention as it has permitted a study of the matter. It is my conclusion that the time taken for the ten-minute question and answer period must be added to the actual time of speeches in determining the total eight-hour period during the second segment of consideration of second reading of a Bill.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Ramon John Hnatyshyn

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hnatyshyn:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a new point of order for your consideration, having ruled on what I thought was a valid point of order raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), with respect to the interpretation of the new rules. We all understand that this is on a temporary basis and we must look at the rules as they are in fact in the Standing Orders now during this trial period.

My point of order relates to another aspect on which I would ask for a ruling from the Chair. The wording of the new Standing Orders with respect to time limits on speeches relates to different stages in the proceedings, whether it be second reading or indeed with respect to any state of the proceedings. What it is silent on, though, is with respect to the rules which will apply in the event, as we now have it in this particular debate, of an amendment being brought forward by a Member which is accepted by the Chair on second reading. Therefore, the Hon. Member for Regina West rose and moved a motion, which is accepted by the Chair, to put a completely new and novel dimension on this debate in terms of the subject matter for consideration by the House.

His motion, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, was simply that this matter not be now debated but be suspended for consideration for a period of six months. That puts a new item before the House for consideration, Mr. Speaker. When we look at the rules and at the Standing Orders, it refers to eight hours with respect to the matter under consideration. It does not talk about second reading. It talks about a stage or item under consideration. My submission to you, Mr. Speaker, is that when a motion, particularly in the case of second reading motions, is brought forward, as we know, we are very much limited in the type of amendment which is acceptable and will be accepted by the Chair under our rules on second reading. There are very few amendments which are acceptable on the part of the Chair. Therefore, when we do have a motion of amendment which, in effect, is accepted by the Chair and by the House, it seems to me only reasonable that we should have full opportunity of examining that matter which is then under consideration.

This is a matter of some considerable substance. This is an excellent Bill on which to raise this point because what the Government is purporting to do under this legislation is not a

May 16, 1983

Western Grain Transportation Act

trifling or incidental matter; it is attempting to change what has been referred to as Magna Carta of western Canada in terms of transportation policy.

Therefore it becomes extremely important for Members of Parliament, in fulfilling their responsibility, to be able to have an adequate or reasonable period of time for debate. The rules should be so interpreted because we are, after all, Parliamentarians representing our constituents. We should not be thwarted on a narrow or limited reading of the Standing Orders if there is a question or ambiguity.

With respect to the wording of the matter under consideration, we are now considering technically and for all purposes the amendment of the Hon. Member for Regina West which asks the House to vote on the proposition that this Bill be stood over for six months and brought back for consideration at that time.

When we have consideration of important legislation which is so highly emotional, and such importance is attached to it by people, particularly those in one important region of Canada, it seems to me that a reasonable interpretation of the Standing Orders should be that when we have an amendment at second reading the time clock should start again. We have a situation where we are entitled to full and legitimate debate on a proper amendment, properly accepted, properly before the House. We in the House of Commons who want to speak for a period of time on a matter which affects the very livelihood of the people we represent should not be thwarted by some unreasonable reading of this particular rule.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for your consideration of this particular point of order because I think it is more than legitimate and one which is of very serious consequence to this particular Bill.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Douglas Grinslade Lewis (Official Opposition House Leader; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lewis:

I rise on the same point of order.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Cyril Lloyd Francis (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) seeking to speak on the same point of order?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Leslie Gordon Benjamin (N.D.P. Caucus Chair)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Benjamin:

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for raising this sort of ancillary or similar point of order to the one, which was just dealt with and on which I will not comment. I just wish the rule read the way Your Honour has ruled.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Cyril Lloyd Francis (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

The Hon. Member is raising a point of order. He cannot go back on a decision of the Chair.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Leslie Gordon Benjamin (N.D.P. Caucus Chair)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Benjamin:

That is right, Mr. Speaker. I want to say to the Chair that I agree with the point raised by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, that the time period presently being counted also counts on a debate on the amendment. Once the amendment has been dealt with, however long it may take, we return to debate the main motion and a new time period commences with reference to the eight hours and 20-minute speeches.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Blaine Allen Thacker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Thacker:

I rise on the same point of order.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Cyril Lloyd Francis (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) was rising on the same point of order.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Douglas Grinslade Lewis (Official Opposition House Leader; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lewis:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague from Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) in making reference to this point of order. The amendments at second reading, as the Speaker will know, are very limited as to their application and what type of amendment can be made. The debate which has proceeded since the introduction of the amendment on the six-month hoist is basically as to whether or not the Bill is appropriate for the time and whether the six-month hoist should apply.

I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the Bill has a great deal of importance in Western Canada. Unfortunately, the Government-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink

May 16, 1983