October 13, 1983 (32nd Parliament, 1st Session)

NDP

Stanley J. Hovdebo

New Democratic Party

Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):

Mr. Speaker, I find it a little bit incongruous to be standing to speak to this motion because it assumes that Motion No. 34 is lost. I am sure that you, along with other Members of the House, will recognize that Motion No. 34 was really the key motion and that the arguments our Party made over the last couple of days on that motion have persuaded both the Liberals and Conservatives to vote for it. I am also sure that it is incomprehensible to the audience watching to have us arguing about a motion which assumes another motion has already been lost when we have not even voted on it. But such is the case so we have to argue as if Clause 17(4) has not been deleted.
I think to get the sense of this it is necessary to read the clause as well as the amendment. Clause 17(4) provides:
October 13, 1983

The Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interest of the grain producers.
The amendment reads:
-but such agreements shall not provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport from shipping points on rail lines which have not been abandoned by order of the Canadian Transport Commission.
That makes it impossible, Mr. Speaker, for the Administrator to have grain hauled by truck from an elevator where a rail line is operational. If you were to review the arguments of many Conservative Members over the last couple of days, as I did to some extent, I am sure you would find that in arguing against Motion No. 34 they put up a good number of arguments in favour of Motion No. 35. So I am sure that we will have the support of the Conservatives for this particular amendment.
For example, the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) thoroughly explained the need for trucking in his area of the country where there are no railways. I submit that Motion No. 34 would not have made any difference to his particular situation because if there are no railways, trucking must be and will continue to be used. It was a little difficult to follow his arguments on that basis.
I also noted that the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) spoke about the irrelevance of the arguments of the NDP and was himself-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Full View