1983-10-07

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, recently CN Rail announced that the staff complement of its operations in London, Ontario, will be reduced from the present 564 employees to 437 by 1987, a reduction of 127 employees. Combined with the CN Trucking cutback, 233 CN jobs will be lost in London. CN Rail attributed the London lay-offs to "technological and operational changes", as well as to CN efforts to "start introducing certain efficiencies".
Although I appreciate that CN Rail has job security agreements which will ensure that many of the London job losses will take the form of transfers, early retirement, and attrition, many Londoners will nevertheless lose their jobs. I am concerned that those who introduce these sorts of streamlining measures, which aim to improve productivity and efficiency through the application of centralized technology, are not always aware of the profound human consequences these changes have on workers and on over-all employment levels. It is my sincere hope that in the case of CN Rail these human consequences will be seriously considered.
It is also my hope that where technological, organizational and operational changes are necessary, an effort will be made to ensure that the resultant lay-offs are minimized and that staff reductions are shared equitably throughout the operations of CN Rail.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, now hear this! Last Saturday the news media reported that 500,000 people turned out in Moscow in a peace march protesting the deployment of United States missiles in Europe. This is hypocrisy personified, when the Warsaw Pact has been building and testing missiles extensively during the last few years and
now has three times the number of mobile surface to air missiles, double the number of land divisions, three times the number of anti-aircraft artillery, four times the number of tanks, as does NATO, which includes the U.S.A., to say nothing about its 7,500 aircraft capable and equipped to deliver nuclear weapons, or its scores and scores of submarines now carrying ballistic missiles.
Of course Communist leaders tell none of these facts to the Russian people, but while NATO and the U.S.A. actively work for Strategic Arms Reduction Talks and are committed to negotiate an equitable and verifiable agreement on strategic nuclear weapons, Moscow communists quietly build up their stockpile of missiles and submarines, and send their fifth columns throughout the western world to talk peace.
Yes, let us continue to negotiate for arms reduction on an equitable, mutual, and verifiable basis with the communists, but let them not think that we are blind to their avowed objective, namely, the domination of the world.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, today is the two hundred and twentieth anniversary of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. This Proclamation, one of Canada's oldest constitutional documents, recognized the basic rights of Indian nations and directed that all negotiations should be on a government to government basis. The basic intent of this document was emphasized in many treaties when Indian people were assured that they could continue their traditional way of life. Failure to respect the spirit of the Royal Proclamation has led to the basic mistrust by Indians of federal and provincial Governments. Positive action is needed on the part of all Canadians to implement the spirit of the Royal Proclamation of 1763.
A basic change must be made in the traditional pattern of Canadian politics which has led to the disintegration of Indian life, the assimilation of its people, and the dismal social and economic conditions in which they struggle. On this two hundred and twentieth anniversary of the Royal Proclamation, all Canadians should commit themselves to working together so that Indian nations can take their rightful place in the Canadian federation.

October 7, 1983
[Translation\


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, the unanimous support given the Government's resolution on October 6 by the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party has raised them to the ranks of the great statesmen of our time, which include our Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Hon. Richard Hatfield, Premier of New Brunswick, and of course great statesmen of the past such as Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Hon. Edward Blake.
The telephone has not stopped ringing since that historic moment. Until late last night and again early this morning, my office was receiving calls asking me to express the callers' appreciation to our Prime Minister, to the Leader of the Opposition, to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and of course, to all members from Manitoba.
These calls came from both English- and French-speaking Canadians, all of whom were from Ontario. In the light of the many calls received from Ontarians endorsing the gesture made yesterday by our three leaders, I would invite the Premier of Ontario, the Hon. William Davis, to join the league of great statesmen by officially recognizing bilingualism in Ontario, as has been done in the Province of New Brunswick.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, the employment situation in central Nova Scotia and along its eastern shore is extremely serious. Ferguson Industries and Hawker Siddeley are both facing a very bleak winter. The House will know-and the Government is certainly aware-that further shipbuilding orders can be awarded. There are few if any places in the country where employment is needed more than at Ferguson Industries in Pictou, Nova Scotia.
The Government is also aware that any refit work that is required would have a great and beneficial effect in keeping the work force at Ferguson Industries from facing, along with their counterparts at Hawker Siddeley across the harbour, another bleak and very unsatisfying Christmas.
If the Special Recovery Program is to be meaningful, surely there has to be proper assessment of priorities and, by the same token, the Government's purchasing and tendering policies should be seen to be equitable, and not open to further politicizing of the nature we have seen in recent months.
1 am appealing to those on the Treasury benches to take heed of the very serious unemployment situation in that part of Nova Scotia, and to take some action to remedy it.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, on September 26 in Honduras, Miguel Angel Ortiz was seized by Honduran security forces. Ortiz is executive director of the Christian Democratic Party, a recognized party with representation in the Honduras Assembly. He is also a member of the Electoral Commission of the capital.
Since he was seized, his court order for habeas corpus has not been honoured and no charges have been laid in court. This is shocking. Just two years ago Honduras went through a form of democratic elections. It is said to be a democracy with liberty for legal opponents and critics of the government, yet ever since the installation of President Suado Cordova in February, 1982, human rights have been under attack. First Salvadoran refugees were harassed, and even killed by the military. Soon Honduran citizens were being treated the same way. Ortiz is only the latest and most prominent of a number of Hondurans who have been kidnapped by the state.
An assault like this on the executive of an official party makes a mockery of Honduras' claim to democracy. Canada gives $10 million or $15 million per year in development aid to Honduras. Honduras is the main United States military base in Central America, and the base for United States supported invasions in Nicaragua. Therefore, Canada must either speak out firmly and publicly against the Honduras military assault on its own people and its neighbours, or share the blame for the destruction of human rights and life in Honduras and Nicaragua. I call upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to intervene with the President of Honduras to request immediate release of Miguel Angel Ortiz.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Madam Speaker, today, we have some encouraging news for Canadian since the unemployment rate has dropped to 11.3 percent. Unfortunately, one group of Canadians is not going to benefit as much, and I am referring to young men, among whom unemployment is at 30.9 percent and young women, where this figure is nearly 16.2 percent. I feel that this should make us challenge our traditional programs and wonder why their general effectiveness did not reach this segment of the population. People refer to
October 7, 1983

the "lost generation". I would say that we are wasting lives, and I feel that, in terms of the broad principles of equal opportunity and minority rights, all members of this House should recognize the need for increased awareness and for consultation on this very serious problem which will certainly become a priority for this Government, and that governments, employers and unions should be aware of the problem and take joint action, so that we will not have a generation that has lost all hope and is unable to seek its rightful place in society.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) is quoted as saying in New York that Canada has been actively engaged in discussions with Cuba, Nicaragua, and Guatemala-no mention being made of El Salvador, Honduras, and Costa Rica-with a view to offering Canadian observer teams to supervise the truce which the Contadora Group is trying to arrange to bring peace and stability to Central America.
Now that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) has returned to the House for Question Period it is appropriate that he should know that the House expects that, if the stories are true, the Government will be setting aside some of its time so the issue can be fully debated and approved or disapproved, as the case may be, before any decision is taken to commit Canadians, whether military or civilian, to any such operation. During his statement the Secretary of State for External Affairs should outline fully how this offer came to be made, as well as the terms and conditions, including the length of time that any Canadian observer group would be permitted to serve in such a role.
Canadians will no longer tolerate truce observation teams to serve more or less indefinitely, as has been altogether too prevalent in previous similar situations. Canada does not want to become part of the problem that needs to be resolved. It is also important that Canadians should learn why no discussions appear to have taken place with authorized spokesmen in El Salvador, nor in Honduras and Costa Rica where some involvement is being alleged.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Earlier this week the political Minister for Toronto was complaining that the Government had lots of money available for its various programs, but very few applications. Does this situation indicate that the Government's programs are misdirected, or is the Government concerned that the money will not be spent before the next election?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I have had occasion to discuss this matter with the Minister, and he would be happy to answer the question if addressed to him.


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I can understand why the Hon. Member came to the conclusion he did on the basis of the newspaper reports of what I said. What 1 was discussing at that point was the grant that was made to the Ryerson Institute of Technology, which 1 hope the Hon. Member would support. I was speaking particularly of the area of trade skills development. It is true that in those areas we have had some surplus funds, and I would have welcomed receiving more applications along the line of the Ryerson proposal because it is the kind of thing which, 1 think, very badly needs to be done across the country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I think this clearly points out that we cannot force-feed an economy. I think it also points out the futility of developing policies which experts in Ottawa design to be perfect programs which, when applied in the real world, simply do not work.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON TAX INCENTIVES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Is the Government considering a shift toward the use of tax incentives which are broadly based and available to all, or is this not consistent with the political strategy of the Minister's Party which is to try to get maximum publicity through the presentation of a cheque, or the cutting of a ribbon, or a picture in the paper, all key elements of the Liberal political election primer, part one?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I am a bit surprised by the Hon. Member's statement. The project which I just described for Ryerson Institute of Technology was not one designed here in Ottawa. It was a worthy project which was designed by people on the spot in Toronto and was supported very strongly by

October 7, 1983
Oral Questions
industry, as well as by Ryerson Institute of Technology, which will provide training in a whole variety of areas such as robotics and laser technology, training which is very much needed and wanted in the marketplace. I would have thought that the Hon. Member, being from Toronto, would in fact be applauding this as exactly the kind of project we should be supporting, rather than saying it was a waste of taxpayers' money.
As far as the second part of his question which relates to tax incentives is concerned, it might be worth while if the Hon. Member would simply review the budget brought forward by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, which brings in exactly the kind of tax encouragements which will create jobs in the country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, if the Minister would read that budget he would see that about two-thirds to three-quarters of the money that was added in that budget will be handed out by direct grants, loans or subsidies, and not by tax incentives.


LIBERAL PARTY ELECTION STRATEGY INQUIRY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the Government seems to be more concerned with developing a strategy for the recovery of the Liberal Party than with developing a strategy for the recovery of the economy. Is it true that the doling out of taxpayers' dollars, backed up by a high profile promotion campaign, is a critical element in the Liberal Party's strategy which is designed to rectify the desperate position that its Members find themselves in with the voters of Toronto?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the kind of tax encouragement which is provided in my colleague's budget amounts to, if my memory serves me correctly, something like $2.4 billion. I think that it not only will have, but has been having a very considerable effect on the creation of jobs in the country. I am surprised that the Hon. Member is not on his feet today saluting us because the unemployment statistics show that there has been a decline of one-half of 1 per cent in the unemployment figures. The policies which were brought in by my colleague's budget, and which we have pursued since, are working now and will continue to work in the future. It is about time Hon. Members on the other side of the House began to recognize that we are on the right track.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SIGNS FOR WORKS PROJECTS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that the Minister does not want to reply to the question that my colleague has asked about the importance the Government places on advertising.
1 would like to ask the Prime Minister if he will confirm the existence of a confidential document I have in my hand, dated
September 16, which is a Cabinet document called "Status Report on Communications". It, among other things, indicates as advice to Cabinet that the Government does not even know many jobs will be created directly or indirectly by the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program. There is more preoccupation with the number of signs going up than with actually producing new jobs.
Would the Prime Minister confirm that, in fact, of 247 construction projects approved to date, there are already signs on 199 and an additional 328 signs are to be erected? In other words, there will be more signs than projects. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this is the emphasis the Government is developing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member asks me to comment on a leaked Cabinet document. Let me read to him from the oath of Members of the Privy Council.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. Members over there laugh because they have forgotten their oath; we have not on this side.


Mr. Nielsen:: How about your Minister of Energy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would be prepared to deposit a copy of this document that I will read from.


Erik Nielsen: We did that during the Gillespie debate.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It would be perfectly useless, however, because those Members on the other side will never have occasion to take this oath.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Never say never, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I quote, Madam Speaker: "you will keep close and secret all such matters as shall be treated, debated and resolved on in Privy Council ... So help me God."


Mr. Stevens:: Why didn't they?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, it is obvious the documents are leaked when some officials within Departments feel that things are going wrong.


SIZE OF SIGNS ADVERTISING PROJECTS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, this document states as follows:
At the request of Ministers, extra large project site signs have been erected at Toronto Harbourfront (60' x 15') and Dorval and Toronto airports (16' x 8').
The document also indicates that, because of initial adverse publicity surrounding the Canadair CL-215 program, a great national event would be held at Dorval in late September, including an air show where the CL-215 water bombers were to be flown, with several Cabinet Ministers participating.
October 7

Is this the price that the Government is willing to pay, risking life and limb of the people of Canadair in such a great public extravaganza, in order to promote their political aims and nothing more?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will concede, and I will even brag about the fact, that the Government intends that the spending of the taxpayers' money raised by Parliament, will be known to the taxpayers of Canada. I know the Party on the other side is not interested in that approach. They do not believe in a strong federal presence. I have never heard them criticize the millions spent on advertising by Premier Davis in Ontario, or by Premier Levesque. That is because they do not believe in a strong Canada; they believe in strong Provinces. That is the difference between the two Parties.

Oral Questions
the area around Gaspe and the town of Grande-Vallee. Is the Hon. Minister prepared to intervene in Gaspe to help the people in these communities or is he just going to blame the Quebec Government for the situation?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows very well he is partaking in an intellectual fraud. He knows very well that employment statistics vary in this country seasonally, particularly between August and September. He knows that very well. The fact of the matter is that the base line of employment since last November has improved tremendously. It is the seasonally adjusted figures which show the .5 per cent drop which are the important figures. He knows that. I would either have to be disrespectful to his intelligence or to his sincerity. I prefer, in this particular case, not to be very flattering about his sincerity.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Labour force statistics are out today and they document the fact that 309,000 fewer Canadians are working today than were working one month ago. Rather than the Minister simply calling upon the Opposition to salute him because of a statistical drop in the rate of unemployment, I wonder whether he is prepared to do something real for the 309,000 Canadians who are not working and who were working a month ago.


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows that the appropriate assessment is to look at what is happening to employment figures in a seasonally adjusted way. For some reason the Hon. Member wants to put the worst possible interpretation that he can on the figures, and to welcome with gloom and doom every sign he can find, even when he distorts them, to justify taking that position. The fact is that for every month since last November there has been an improvement in the employment situation, and that is shown in the figures. I would have thought that the hon. gentleman would have been happy about that rather than seeming to take some enjoyment in the fact that he can find some reason for sadness.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN GASPE REGION OF QUEBEC
Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, the statistics clearly show there are 309,000 fewer Canadians working today than one month ago. The Minister has been in his portfolio long enough to know that.

Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same Minister. The Minister is aware that the regions in Canada are suffering from very high unemployment rates, and especially


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, let us deal with some facts. The Government has before it the report of the automobile industry task force which recommended, among other important things, that the Government immediately undertake negotiations for Canadian content in foreign imported cars. It suggested we could create 80,000 jobs in Canada, with a Canadian content requirement. We will lose 40,000 jobs if we do not act. Why does the Government not move now to negotiate a Canadian content requirement for imported automobiles in order to ensure employment not only for automobile workers, but for other workers in the steel, glass, and rubber industries?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has this report. He has been discussing it with various people. It is under examination and review. When the Government is ready to make an announcement in that regard, I am sure the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be very happy to provide his answer.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the confusion created by the Hon. Member for Provencher with regard to premiums for health care in the Yukon, would the Minister enlighten the House by telling us in fact' whether or not there are hospital premiums levied in the Yukon? Obviously the Hon. Member for Provencher not

October 7, 1983
Oral Questions
only has difficulty coming up with a policy on medicare for his Party, but also has difficulty reading the facts.


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare answered the question yesterday quite correctly when she said that there were no hospital premiums in the Yukon. What the Hon. Member for Provencher was talking about was medical care premiums which are charged by the Territorial Government of the Yukon at $26.50 per family multiplied by 12, which gives him his figure of $318. The Hon. Member should address his question to the Territorial Government which, I understand, is also a Conservative Government.


PAYMENT OF HOSPITAL LEVIES
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for that answer. Could he then answer this question? Why is it that the federal Government, which owns and controls all of the hospitals in the Territory, has made an arrangement that it will not neither give a tax base or sufficient revenue, but rather that those levies can be made and in fact its federal hospitals are sustained in part through premiums?


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, it is very easy to distort the facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


W. Bennett Campbell: The Hon. Member is talking about medical care premiums, which 1 remind him are being charged by doctors and being condoned by the Government of the Yukon.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF NEW TAX REGIME
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, could I ask the Minister, then, now that he has confirmed that federal hospitals are in fact partially sustained by levies, if he would indicate whether he would do the same thing which this Government did, which was that, having imposed entry fees for admission into the Yukon hospitals for years and years, it finally dropped them in 1981, not for philosophical or policy reasons but rather because the revenues received were less than the cost of the administration of the program?
Would the Government now undertake a tax regime in that Territory in order to remove the necessity of sustaining the hospitals through monthly premiums, and having done that would it then be willing to discuss medicare on that basis in other jurisdictions as well?


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is complicating the issue more and more. First of all, hospitals are not being sustained by premiums. The Yukon system is a non-premium system. The medicare system, where doctors perform services for
patients in hospitals, is where the premiums are being applied by the Government. I said that very simply in the first answer.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who confirmed to me, in response to a question I raised on September 30, that negotiations between Canada and France over France's sovereignty claim in the St. Pierre and Miquelon area have broken down. How many exploration permits for oil and gas have been issued by France within our exclusive economic zone outside St. Pierre's territorial zone?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, there is a disputed zone. At present negotiations between Canada and France have not resulted in a resolution of that difficulty. The Hon. Member asks what licences have been issued by France in that disputed zone, which is not the territorial sea to which he refers. I do not have the facts on that but I will find out if any, and let him know.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I cannot use it as evidence, but I have a map showing the number of permits issued outside the 12-mile territorial zone and inside Canada's exclusive economic zone. Why did the Government allow those permits to be issued by another sovereign country, inside Canada's exclusive economic zone?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I presume the Hon. Member is referring to the disputed zone adjacent to St. Pierre and Miquelon in which France has claimed a very extensive area, and which we dispute. That is the subject of negotiations. Canada certainly has not and will not acknowledge the claims made by the French Government.
The Hon. Member asks why have we not prevented the Government of France from doing this. I think on reflection he will find that is something beyond the reach of the Government of Canada.


EXPORT PRICE OF NATURAL GAS
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who, once again, is in the House but not in his seat If we could divert him from the campaign trail, possibly we could direct his attention to his Ministry.
October 7, 1983

The national energy policy plan announced by President Reagan this week reaffirms the U.S. commitment to further deregulation of U.S. natural gas prices, increasing the competitive pressures on Canadian gas exporters who are selling only 40 per cent of their contracted volumes. Since it is the Liberal Cabinet which sets gas export prices, and since the single border price for Canadian gas exports is too expensive for our American customers, is the Minister prepared to reduce the price charged for our gas exports? Or is he prepared to see us lose this market to our competitors?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I am well aware of the problem. Twice this year I have adjusted prices. 1 reduce it in the first instance and gave an incentive price for new quantities of natural gas in the American market later on. These decisions were taken in consultation with the industry and the producing Provinces, Alberta and British Columbia. We are holding discussions at this time, and the view being expressed by the provincial Governments and myself on this problem is that there is no need to move at this time. We are watching the situation very carefully, in consultation with the industry and the Provinces.
I have to tell the Hon. Member that the U.S. market is complicated at this time and some politicians in Washington are trying to blame Canadians for high prices, but we provide only 5 per cent of the natural gas used in the American market. We are just a marginal supplier, and at this time there is no need for a further move. If there is, 1 will do that in consultation with the producing Provinces.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I remind the Minister of the comment made publicly by the president of TransCanada PipeLines who says this Government is neither technically nor psychologically competent to set the price of gas.


PRICE CHARGED TO U.S. CUSTOMERS
Pat Carney: Since contracts are now being negotiated between Canadian suppliers and U.S. gas companies at rates less than Canadian domestic gas prices, and since this would violate existing pricing regulations, does the Minister intend to allow Americans to buy our gas for less than what Canadians pay?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think the comment the Hon. Member made is in fact a bad reflection on the Alberta Government which has supported me in all the activities I have initiated in that field. If we are not competent, I guess the Alberta Government is even less competent because it has been perhaps less flexible than I have been on that score. 1 think it is a hypothetical question at this time. When we decide to change the price we will see if it will be lower for the Americans than Canadians. But 1 do not think there is a great desire in Canada at this time to see Canadian gas sold in the American market cheaper than in the Canadian market.
Oral Questions RAILWAYS


MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON RAILWAY LANDS IN TORONTO
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who, while freely dispensing from the pork barrel in Toronto this week, indicated that among the projects to receive federal funding were construction projects, in particular those related to the development of the railway lands. By that 1 suppose he is talking about the relocation of the rail lines leading into and out of metropolitan Toronto, which is the subject matter of a study by the Railway Committee of the CTC. Is the Minister now telling us that, prior to the conclusion of that study, he wishes to relocate those lines to the north, into the region which is now the electoral district of York North?


John (Moody) Roberts: No, Madam Speaker, I am not saying that. What 1 would say to the hon. gentleman is that the Liberal Members from the City of Toronto are very much interested in the proposals brought forward by the Mayor of Toronto for the development of the railway lands along the waterfront. This is a project which we are following with considerable interest, and we hope to work closely with the municipal officials, particularly Mayor Eggleton, in realizing that project.


TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, if indeed these rail lines are moved from their present area in metropolitan Toronto, and if the Minister who, of course comes from that region, will look at the matter very carefully, it will be obvious there is no other place to locate them except where the preliminary report of the Railway Committee indicates, that is, through the riding of York North.
Having regard to the fact that the preliminary report dealt with the transportation of dangerous goods and the consequential effect upon people in the entire metropolitan Toronto area, will the Minister now realize that the transportation of dangerous goods across the northern part of metropolitan Toronto, given prevailing winds, will have a devastating effect in the event there is an accident, not only on my riding of York North but on the entire area to the South, which is metropolitan Toronto?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I will certainly pass on to the proper authorities the representations of the hon. gentleman that the rail lines be moved into his constituency.


John Albert Gamble: Very funny.

October 7, 1983
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion, whose Government has worked very closely with the Social Credit Government of British Columbia in developing one of the few major megaprojects in western Canada. What the Government has been telling Canadians is that this will be the major job-creation project in western Canada in the months and years ahead.
Is the Minister aware of a recent study done by H.N. Halvorson Consultants Limited for the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority that suggests that the two major mines in the northeast coal sector, namely, the Bullmoose Mine and the Quintet Mine, because of the high price of coal that they are mining, will be mothballed likely for the next 20 years?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, first, I am not aware of the Hon. Member's allegations. But, second, if he is speaking of megaprojects in western Canada, I would hope that he would encourage his colleagues to support the Crow changes, because that is one of the biggest megaprojects ever developed in this country.


INDUSTRY AND LABOUR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Ten months ago, the Government announced an ILAP program for Port Alberni, in the sum of $15 million. To this point only $3 million of that amount has been spent, creating only temporary jobs, more permanent. In light of the fact that this Program will elapse in December, and in light of the fact that the backbone of the Alberni Valley will continue to be the forest industry, is the Minister prepared to consider extending that Program, changing the criteria, so that that community, in that area, along with the Government, industry and labour, can embark on a major reforestation program, using the funds that remain, under different criteria?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I welcome the representations of the hon. gentleman. I am not aware of the exact details of what he is describing. I am therefore pleased that he has brought it to my attention. I will look into it and try to deal with it as sympathetically as I can.
I indicated to the House before that we have undertaken continuation of what, in effect, was the old employment bridging assistance program, which was oriented toward the forest industry. It may be possible that there are some elements
within that extension which could be of service to the Hon. Member. In any case I will look into the specifics of the matter and try to see what is possible to do.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION PROGRAM
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It appears to the western farmers that the Government is playing politics with their money. I am referring to the Western Grain Stabilization Program, in which there are some $900 million, and also to increasing the initial price for grain. Farmers have a very, very serious cash flow problem. Will the Government continue to hold the farmers' money-and I emphasize "the farmers' money"-and play politics with their money, or will it make it available? We have heard nothing from the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board of any positive consequences. What direction is the Government taking?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I believe I answered questions previously this week concerning the western grain stabilization fund. As the Hon. Member knows, it is basically an insurance fund, and both the farmer and the federal Government pay into the fund against the day when the cost price squeeze becomes so exorbitant that farmers lose dramatically.
Under the legislation itself, pay-outs must be considered according to a five-year average. That is not at the discretion of the Government or anyone else. That is very clearly laid out in the Bill and the statutes. The five-year average, as it is being considered now, represents some $400 million above the five-year average pay-out and, therefore, we are not in a position to respond. However, I have said that we are reviewing the western grain stabilization fund to see whether it can be reduced to a lower three-year average, therefore providing quicker pay-outs.
We have received representations. They have been very valuable. As soon as our review is concluded the Government will move on that, but we would obviously require legislation to make the change.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, with regard to the Western Grain Stabilization Program, the Minister knows that it was designed not to be an insurance program, but, rather, a cash flow program. The Government is dragging its feet on this issue. With regard to the initial payment, when will the Minister announce an increase in the payment for barley? Wheat is trading at Thunder Bay at $1.14 higher than the farmers are receiving at the grain elevators today.
October 7, 1983


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I can report to the Hon. Member that the question of the pay-out on barley payments is now being considered by the Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board. 1 expect he will be making a recommendation to Cabinet momentarily.
 * *


FISHERIES
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, if I might have his attention. Yesterday, in the House, the Minister said that the federal Government was still looking into the possibilities concerning the reopening of the Seafoods Plant at Georgetown, Prince Edward Island. How does the Minister reconcile that uncertain statement with firm commitments given by his colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, all last summer, to the workers at Georgetown, that the reopening of the plant was imminent? Who was speaking for the Government of Canada on this important issue, the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Veterans Affairs?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: can tell the Hon. Member, if he is trying to see any contradiction, that there is none. I have had several meetings with the regional Minister for P.E.I., precisely on the question involving Georgetown, and we are working on it very hard. On the other hand, as the Hon. Member may remember, I have said that, before focusing on one plant in a particular Province, what we must do is to look toward establishing healthy corporations, with proper financing, and then we can focus on the different plants.
Now that we have, I hope, managed to come to a solution by the merger of Nickerson and National Sea, obviously, concerning the question of Georgetown, I see some avenue there. I will be meeting next Tuesday with the Minister of Fisheries of P.E.l. jointly with the regional Minister, and this topic will be among the questions we will be discussing.


DATE OF PLANT REOPENING
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans identify himself with the firm commitment given by his colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to the workers of Georgetown that the opening of the plant will be prior to next spring? Yes or no? Will he give that commitment?


Pierre De Bané: can say to my hon. friend that my resolve is as great as that of the regional Minister that every possibility be studied. If a solution can be found I am sure that nobody will be happier than the regional Minister himself.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF NAVAL UNIFORMS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question to ask the Minister of National Defence. When Vice-Admiral Fulton retired as Chief of Maritime Command in July of 1983, he made a very serious plea to return the blue uniform to Canada's Navy. All concerned know that this would be a tremendous boost to morale in that branch of the Canadian Armed Forces. Therefore, will the Minister meet this plea from one of Canada's dedicated naval personnel, and will he immediately implement a plan or program to restore the navy blue uniform to Canada's Navy?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, in view of Admiral Fulton's representations, and in view of a number of representations that have been made by Hon. Members, that is one of the areas to which 1 paid particular attention very early on, after being appointed. I have considered it very seriously, with the aspects identified by the Hon. Member, and have come to the judgment, having considered all the various arguments, that there is no advantage at this time-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blais:: -in returning to the old style uniforms or to the old colours. 1 might point out that over 68 per cent of those who are presently in the Force came into the Force at the time the uniform was of a green colour, such as it is, and are satisfied with the state of affairs. There is no intention of changing that state of affairs.


Howard Edward Crosby: I am very disappointed, as I am sure thousands of other Canadians will be, with the Minister's attitude.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONSULT ON ISSUE
Howard Edward Crosby: Will the Minister at least avoid taking a firm opinion on this matter? Will he consult many people across Canada, in and out of the Canadian Armed Forces, before he makes a final decision? I know that his predecessor was of that mind, but surely there is always hope for some change in his attitude. Therefore, I ask the Minister, will he at least consult-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Always backwards, never forward.


Howard Edward Crosby: -with people in the Armed Forces and other interested Canadians before he makes a final decision on this very important issue? And do not make light of it.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, I am not making light of it. As I indicated to the hon. gentleman, that was one of the first things that I considered. One of the factors I took under consideration at the time was that Canada has an armed force that has superior morale because we are able to provide it with the highest pay of any

October 7, 1983
Oral Questions
force within NATO. I am not sure whether Canada's force is not the highest paid of any force in the world. That has been made possible as a result of the savings that we were able to effect within the force because of integration. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that going back to the different coloured uniforms would simply be an indication of a weakening of our resolve to maintain the integration of our armed forces.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melvilie):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As he is aware, Saskatchewan is one of only two Provinces where unemployment went up last year. As a matter of fact, since the election of the Conservative Government in our Province the number of people looking for work has gone up by 82 per cent in the last year.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The number of people on welfare has gone up 46 per cent in the last couple of years. I know Tory times are tough times, but that is no excuse for the Minister across the way not to have some special measures for my Province. Can he tell us what he plans to do to provide jobs in Saskatchewan, and is he planning on meeting our Premier very soon?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, as I pointed out earlier today, there is now and has been a considerable improvement in the employment picture across the country since November. I can only hope, if Saskatchewan is suffering a minor fluctuation, that the over-all improvement in the country will help. It seems to me the obvious answer to the question which the Hon. Member has posed is the removal of the Conservative Government in Saskatchewan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
 * *


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Over two years ago his Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development went to northern Manitoba and promised a new school to the residents of Cross Lake, an Indian reserve. Last week Howard Pawley and myself-


Mr. Murta:: Howard who?


Rodney Edward Murphy: -toured the present accommodations. There are holes in the floor of those school buildings through which you can put your foot. These are elementary classrooms. That promise was made over two years ago by the Government and it has not been fulfilled. Next week Treasury Board considers a submission for a new school in that area. I would ask the Prime Minister to use his good offices to make sure that submission is accepted, as was promised by his Minister.
[ Translation]


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is reviewing parts of the program where work has already been done, and a definite answer on the subject should be forthcoming within the next few weeks.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. When a Minister is transferred from one portfolio to another, understandably he takes his personal correspondence with him. Keeping in mind the freedom of access to information provisions, what limits are put on the definition of personal correspondence, bearing in mind there is no access to information that has been shredded?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I suppose personal correspondence would first include all correspondence marked personal by the person who writes the letter.


INTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Does this include interdepartmental correspondence, correspondence relating to the privileged information of citizens of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether that is two questions or whether it is the same one. Interdepartmental correspondence would not seem normally to me to be personal correspondence if it has to do with the affairs of Government. If it is between two Ministers of two different Departments, or somebody acting on their behalf, obviously it is covered by the exception relating to communications between Ministers of the Crown, Ministers of the Crown being bound by the oath I quoted earlier to keep correspondence between themselves private and privileged.
October 7, 1983


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week The Globe and Mail reported that the Government of Israel had dedicated a new town called Emmanuel on the occupied West Bank destined eventually to grow to a population of 60,000. Has the Government of Canada objected, or does it intend to object specifically to this new affront to civilized international behaviour, or will it simply acquiesce in this further example of anti-Palestinian racism on the part of the present Israeli regime?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, we have not, to my knowledge, made any particular protest about this settlement. But we have on quite a number of occasions expressed our opposition to the settlement policy of the Israeli Government. We have stated that the continuation of this action is a further obstacle to peace. And as recently as my statement at the United Nations General Assembly, I appealed to Israel again to reconsider its settlement policy.


HARBOURS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Will his Department, through the Small Craft Harbours Branch, be providing material costs for municipalities applying under the Canada Works Program for marina projects this coming winter? It is fairly important to the municipalities to know soon whether the Minister's Department will be providing these funds so they can go ahead with applications for winter works projects.


Erik Nielsen: Of course they are.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I am happy to remind this House that through the Special Recovery Program of the Minister of Finance we have embarked in the Province of Ontario on a very major program of small carft harbour and marina construction. It was a dramatic increase of about 600 per cent for this year. Hopefully, during the next year we will be able to continue our programs jointly with the Department of Employment and Immigration.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Oral Questions
Northern Development, may I put my question to the Acting Minister? When does the Government intend to introduce amendments to the Indian Act, and will the amending legislation now being prepared provide for retroactive validation of proclamations issued under Secton 4(2) of the Act?


André Maltais: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has raised a very interesting point, and I shall take the question as notice. Next week I will be able to provide details on the subject, because the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has many pieces of legislation that are now being reviewed, and I think we must first specify the nature of the question if we are to give a responsible reply.


VALIDITY OF PROCLAMATIONS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, perhaps I can give the Parliamentary Secretary more details by referring him to the secret Cabinet document of July 7 from his Minister-


Erik Nielsen: Another one? They are leaking like a sieve.


Henry Perrin Beatty: -in which he recommended the elimination of discrimination from the Indian Act, with comprehensive legislation to confirm the validity of such proclamations. He recommended further that, even if amendments to such legislation were not passed, the subject proclamations should nonetheless be confirmed by statute to resolve any doubt in their favour. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House why it is that when this document was written the Minister had already prepared a comprehensive reply to the Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments dismissing the concern of the Committee over the validity and legality of those proclamations? Why, if the Government is totally satisfied that those proclamations are legal, did the Minister in a secret document recommend such retroactive legislation?


André Maltais: Madam Speaker, since the Hon. Member seems to be referring to a confidential document whose contents I have not been able to check, I think that in the circumstances, we should wait for an official and public reply that will be given in due course by the responsible Minister.

Petition


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It is now over six weeks since the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's was forced to resign from the Cabinet, leaving Newfoundland the only Province not represented in the hon. gentleman's Cabinet. There are nine Newfoundlanders sitting in the right hon. gentleman's caucus, and there are five in this House. Does the Prime Minister intend to appoint a Newfoundland representative to his Cabinet? If so, when? And 1 hope he will avoid another lecture on prime ministerial prerogatives.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, maybe I should lecture the Hon. Member on the simple subject of fairness. The Member from Newfoundland who was in the Cabinet and who resigned, has his case before the courts now, and it is being decided very soon, I understand.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) on October 6, 1983, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition today on behalf of many hundreds of constituents who protest against the laying of criminal conspiracy charges against the doctors and staff and the Morgentaler Clinic in Winnipeg, who call upon the Government of Canada to take the necessary steps to ensure that the Clinic is approved as a hospital facility under the Criminal Code, and ask that the Government of Canada guarantee women have the right to exercise their democratic freedom by having a right to freedom of choice in reproductive health matters.
October 7, 1983


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,794, 5,267 and 5,268 to 5,298 inclusive.


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83, what amount was spent by the Government with respect to energy derived from renewable sources (i) on outside research and development (ii) on in-house research and development?


John Leslie Evans: I am informed as follows:
Department	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83(i) Energy, Mines and Resources Agriculture Environment National Research Council	340,000 694,154 4.594.000 6.354.000	425,000 1,452,200 6.213.000 9.701.000	488,000 2,964,250 8,011,000 12,511,000(ii) Energy, Mines and Resources Agriculture * Environment National Research Council	92,000 None 583,000 2,945,000	105.000 None 645.000 4,826,000	361.000 None 503.000 6.667,000
* It should be noted that the amounts reported in this reply for expenditures "in-house" were almost exclusively devoted to the design, management, and evaluation of research conducted under contract outside of the Department of the Environment.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): 1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-8, an Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-8 and, if not, for what reason?


John Leslie Evans: See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171 (v), (w) and (cc).
See also House of Commons Debates, January 8, 1973 pp 61-62.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): 1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Labour Information Bureau, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-9 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,269-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1. Does the Government regard Bill C-10, an Act respecting Canadian
non-profit corporations, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the
Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
October 7, 1983	_________________________COMMONS DEBATES
2. Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-10 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,270-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-I2, an Act respecting bankruptcy and insolvency, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-12 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,271-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-23 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,272-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-25 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,273-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Docs the Government regard Bill C-32, an Act authorizing and otherwise relating to rights to be granted to breeders of new varieties of plants to deal in reproductive or vegetative material for their propagation, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-32 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,274-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-33, an Act to amend the Seeds Act, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-33 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,275-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-37, an Act to amend the Holidays Act, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-37 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,276-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-41, an Act to authorize the making of orders relating to the production of records and the giving of information for the purposes of proceedings in foreign tribunals and in respect of the recognition and enforcement in Canada of certain foreign judgments obtained in antitrust proceedings, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-41 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,277-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-52, an Act to provide for the repeal of the Land Titles Act and to validate certain ordinances of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-52 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,278-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1. Does the Government regard Bill C-53, an Act to amend the Criminal Code
in relation to sexual offences and the protection of young persons and to amend
certain other Acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, as a question of
Order Paper Questions
confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2. Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-53 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,279-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act (No. 2), as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-67 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,280-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-69, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-69 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,281-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-96 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,282-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-113, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (No. 2), as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-l 13 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,283-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-l 38, an Act to amend an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-l38 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,284-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-l49, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-l49 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,285-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-l50, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-l50 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,286-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-l52, an Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-l52 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,287-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1. Does the Government regard Bill C-l53, an Act to amend the Financial
Administration Act (Crown Corporations), as a question of confidence, on which
the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?

October 7, 1983
Order Paper Questions
2. Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-153 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,288-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation. shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason ?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-155 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,289-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-157, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-157 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,290-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-158, an Act respecting the Canada Development Corporation, Canada Development Investment Corporation and certain other corporations, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-158 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,291-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-162, an Act respecting Customs, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-162 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,292-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
I . Does the Government regard Bill C-163, an Act to establish the Canadian Aviation Safety Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2. Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-163 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,293-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill C-168, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (No. 2), as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill C-168 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,294-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill S-6, an Act to amend the Two-Price Wheat Act, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill S-6 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,295-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill S-30, an Act to amend certain Acts in relation to Canada Day, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so. for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill S-30 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,296-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
I. Does the Government regard Bill S-32, an Act to amend the Penitentiary
Act and the Parole Act, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the
Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2. Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill S-32 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,297-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill S-31, an Act to limit shareholding in certain corporations, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill S-31 and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 5,298-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):
1.	Does the Government regard Bill S-33, an Act to give effect, for Canada, to the Uniform Evidence Act adopted by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, as a question of confidence, on which the life of the Government depends and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government allow a free vote on all remaining stages of Bill S-33 and, if not, for what reason?


John Leslie Evans: See answer to question No. 5,267 given this day.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.



POINT OF ORDER


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I want to raise a point of order with respect to the comments made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in an answer he gave my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). There is a principle of parliamentary tradition in the House that there shall not be any attempt to interfere with the judicial process. If 1 understood the words of the Prime Minister, his statement was a direct reflection on upcoming proceedings involving the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons), the implication being in connection with the proceedings that the future of that Hon. Member in the Cabinet would depend upon the outcome of a hearing with respect to the charges against the Hon. Member.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order; that is a matter of debate. The Hon. Member cannot raise that point now and try to continue Question Period under the guise of a point of order. That is not a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I simply wanted to raise it. I would like to have a look at the Prime Minister's exact words.


Madam Speaker:: All right, I need no notice of that. The Hon. Member can look at it and raise it, if he thinks he has a
October 7, 1983

point of order. He does not have to tell the House that he thinks he is going to look at something and raise it later. Really, that is an abuse of the time of the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 6, 1983, consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motion No. 33 (Mr. Mazankowski).
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would like to deal now with amendments we have proposed which have been tentatively or permanently ruled out of order, depending on one's interpretation. I dealt with the submission of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) yesterday and therefore I do not propose to dwell on that today.
Basically I want to deal with four matters, although they cover a number of amendments. 1 want to deal with what is in fact beyond the scope of the Bill, as in many instances is the claim by the Chair, with regard to certain of our amendments.
1 want to speak about certain amendments which are defined to be substantive changes to the interpretative clause. I want to deal with the infringement on the Crown's financial initiative and prerogative and, primarily as the fourth matter, 1 want to deal with the question of what is contrary to the purposes of the Bill.
1 have looked at the question of the interpretation of what is beyond the scope of the Bill. It is a difficult subject with which to deal. However, it is necessary to deal with it in order to address certain of the amendments which appear to be in the process of being ruled out of order.
I refer to Driedger's Legislative Form and Precedents", Chapter I, "Formalities", which deals with the long title of a Bill. It sets out in quite lengthy detail how the title of the Bill must reflect the scope of the Bill. It reads, and I quote from the second paragraph:
The title, therefore, must accurately define the scope of the bill, and an amendment is out of order unless it falls within the scope as defined in the title.
Turning to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition under "Form of a Bill", Citation 703 reads:
Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a bill, there should be a theme of relevancy amongst the contents of a bill. They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the long title of the bill.
Western Grain Transportation Act Under the heading, "The Title", Citation 704 reads in part:
(1) Long Title-The long title sets out in general terms the purposes of the bill. It should cover everything in the bill.
The title of the Bill before us is "An Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof'. 1 will argue as 1 go along that in the case of amendments which have been ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the Bill, they cannot possibly be outside the scope of the Bill given what the long title defines the Bill as being.
I draw to your attention, Madam Speaker, that it is quite clear the the House of Commons, according to the citations in Beauchesne's and Erskine May, cannot deal with the clauses contained in the Bill at second reading. It can deal only with the principle of the Bill at second reading. The principle of the Bill at second reading must reflect what is contained in the long title of the Bill. Our amendments are aimed at altering the clauses within the Bill but are quite clearly within the definition of the Bill as contained within the long title. I will return to that in a moment.
I want to deal with our amendments in order. In most instances they will also be within the grouping the Speaker has established. The Speaker ruled in the first ruling that Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 12 and 17 were outside the scope of the Bill. In the second	ruling they	were	deemed to be	substantive
amendments.


Madam Speaker:: Could I simply interrupt the Hon. Member for	a moment. I	would	like him to refer	to a preliminary ruling,	otherwise I	would	not be able to allow him to
comment. I would not like it to appear in Hansard that the Chair is allowing discussion on a ruling. A preliminary ruling is quite acceptable.


Ian Deans: I apologize, Madam Speaker; I obviously meant preliminary	ruling. Any	time	I use the term	"ruling", I
authorize Hansard to insert the word "preliminary" in order that never again will I be seen to be out of order.
1 am dealing with Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 12 and 17. In the majority of cases what we have proposed is not different in even one word from what is already contained in the Bill. We have proposed moving the definition from one part of the Bill to another part of the Bill for ease in the public's dealing with the Bill. It is appropriate for us to suggest that the definition clauses be grouped together so that those who have to deal with the Bill can refer to the definition section and find all of the definitions in that one section so that they can deal with them.
It may not be the desire of the Government to accept that, but I contend that that is clearly in order. Erskine May, Nineteeth Edition, page 527, says on the transfer of clauses that a clause or series of clauses may be transferred on motion from one place in the Bill to another place specified in the motion. What we have done is move in that way. I will deal with the amendments one at a time. There is no attempt on

October 7, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
our part to alter any of those amendments but simply for ease of handling to move those clauses to another part of the Bill.
Let me give an example. I will not read it into the record, but Motion No. 2, the base scale amendment, is identical to a portion of Clause 34(1) of the Bill. We are simply suggesting that it be moved. Motion No. 3 deals with CN adjustments. The content of what we have said capsulizes what was contained in Clause 56(1) of the Bill. It does not alter it in any substantive way. It does not require any additional expenditure by the Crown. It is simply another way of defining the same circumstances. I suggest there is nothing out of order in that. Motion No. 4, the cost change per tonne, is in essence exactly identical to Clause 54(1). We are asking only that it be moved from where it now is to another part of the Bill. Under Motion No. 5, Crow benefit, we have in essence taken exactly what appears in the definition of Crow benefit and moved it to another part of the Bill, consistent with our view that those definitions should all appear in one place.
Motion No. 12, final adjustments, similarly, with minor word changes, does not alter the purpose, nor does it impose upon the Crown any additional expenditure, but simply moves the clause with some word alterations. The word alterations do not in any way negate the principle of the definition that exists in the Bill. Neither does it require the Government to spend more. In fact, it may well require the Government to spend less.
Under Motion No. 15, interim adjustment, the same is true, and minor word changes exist only because our motion did not include report stage amendments. Under Motion No. 17, the rate of cost change, the same situation prevails. The substantive part of what we have done is move that definition from one place in the Bill to another place in the Bill.
I suggest in tentatively ruling that they are unacceptable- they may well be unacceptable to the Government and the House of Commons in a substantive sense, but in terms of their procedural acceptability-they do nothing to alter the purpose of the Bill as set out in the long title. They do nothing to alter the method to be used in determining what the interpretation is intended to serve. I would ask that those amendments in particular be allowed to stand for that reason.
In addition, I ask that it be ruled that it is appropriate. As I suggested, according to Erskine May it is appropriate for Members to move a motion, which we would be doing, a clause of this Bill, in this case that section of a clause, to another part of the Bill. I do not see that there can be anything out of order in that.
I now want to turn to Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 67. They are motions that in one way are grouped for purposes of the interim ruling of the Speaker. They have been ruled by the Chair in the interim ruling to be substantive changes in many instances to interpretative clauses. I will deal with them one at a time because it is necessary to do so. We have made no substantive changes.
Motion No. 12, for example, moves the definition to the front, as do the other motions. Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11
have changes contained within them, but the changes would, in effect, reduce the cost to the Crown. Surely it is within the prerogative of the House of Commons to propose amendments which would reduce the cost to the Crown. That is a well held prerogative of the House.
My colleague the Opposition House Leader indicated yesterday all of the precedents for that. I am sure I do not have to go into them. I am quite confident that the Chair is as aware as every other Member that a Member of Parliament can rise at any time on any financial Bill and move that the amount be decreased. They certainly may not rise as per the Standing Orders of the House of Commons-


Erik Nielsen: You cannot do it on second reading.


Ian Deans: My colleague says you cannot do it at second reading, but you certainly do it when those clauses are rightfully before the House of Commons, and the clauses would be before the House of Commons were they to be ruled admissible at this point in time. We are not arguing that we should have the right to increase the Crown's financial prerogative. We are not arguing that what we have proposed here will require upon the Crown an additional tax or levy of taxation. It will not require the Crown to spend more public moneys than are outlined within the Royal Recommendation. In many instances, if they were to be carried by the House after substantive discussion, they would in fact reduce the cost to the Crown. I claim that is quite clearly within the prerogative of the Opposition, or for that matter within the prerogative of the Government or any Government Member. I am not going to read the authorities in.
The example I would use so that the Speaker can check it is Motion No. 9. It applies to all of them, 1 believe. Motion No. 9 limits the liability to the Government for grants to the railroads. It modifies the existing wording, but it is not contrary to the long title. It is not even contrary to the content of the Bill, regardless of how you define the Bill. It says that there can be grants, but it is not necessary that the grants be made. We believe that should be deemed to be admissible. Whether it is acceptable subsequently in the debate to the House as a whole is a question that can be dealt with later, but it certainly should be admissible.
It has been indicated that Motion No. 12 is deemed to be contrary to the intent of the Bill, yet in this instance again all we are doing is relocating existing wording within the Bill. I will not make the argument; it has already been made. We see no reason why we cannot do that.
Motion No. 13 has to be considered in consequence with Motion No. 14. I have argued that Motion No. 14 is perhaps not acceptable. I am not going to make that argument, but if it were to be decided by the Chair that my argument is not one that can be sustained, then I suggest that Motion No. 13 carries the same obligation; and if Motion No. 14 is therefore acceptable, then Motion No. 13 should at least be offered for debate. That alternative plan, if you will, does not go beyond the Royal Recommendation for Motion No. 14 nor does it go beyond the definition or the long title of the Bill. If one is to be
October 7, 1983

acceptable, then both should be acceptable. If one is ruled out, then 1 concede that both should be ruled out. I believe that that argument is important.
1 now deal with Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 17. Motion No. 17 merely moves the definition to the front of the Bill. It is unamended and contains the exact wording as contained in the Bill previously. Motion No. 16 moves and amends the definition but it is an important definition. We have apparently agreed in principle that the definition of the purpose of the Bill is, as I have said, "An Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of grain".
This motion quite clearly falls four-square within that particular purpose as set out in the long title. This motion deals with shipper costs and there are a number of amendments before us that deal with shipper costs, some moved by the Government and others alternatively moved to try to provide a different way of dealing with what is supposed to be the principle of the Bill.
We are not suggesting that we should deal with other than what is contained in the Bill. We are not suggesting the Government should spend more money than the Royal Recommendation permits. We are suggesting that the money should be spent differently. It would seem to us that if we are not exceeding the Royal Recommendation and if we are clearly within the scope of the Bill in terms of its long title, then an amendment to change the way in which the money is spent should at least be in order for debate. Again, whether or not it is acceptable in principle by the Government or by anyone else is a question to be decided by a vote of the House of Commons, but it is a question that can only be decided by a vote of the House of Commons.
Our argument on Motion No. 16 is clear. We have offered, within the scope of the Bill and within the Royal Recommendation, another way of accomplishing the purpose of the Bill as set out in its long title and also as set out in debate. We are offering another way to achieve the same objective, albeit perhaps with less onerous consequences.
We believe that the decision to be made in this case is a political decision and should be made in the House of Commons after proper debate. It is not one that should be made as a Preliminary ruling of the Chair to the effect that the motion is or is not within the scope of the Bill or that the motion does or does not infringe upon the Royal Recommendation. In our judgment, it clearly does neither of those two things.
In the interim ruling it has been suggested that Motion No. 18 is a substantive interpretation which again goes beyond the scope of the Bill. It is actually intended to limit the Government's prerogative to regulate system participants. Quite clearly, the Government has offered one way in which to solve what it believes is a problem. We have offered an alternative way. Our alternative way is again within the scope of the Bill in terms of the definition contained in the long title of the Bill. It is clearly within the scope of the Bill if one takes into account the Royal Recommendation.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Motion No. 18 narrows the scope of the Bill. It therefore reduces the cost but it does not introduce any new factors into the Bill. However, it does try to define more clearly who will be the recipients. In our judgment, it clarifies the intent of the Bill.
We initially considered Motion No. 18 to be a housekeeping amendment. We believed that it fell into that category and we were a little surprised to find that it was more than that. However, we do believe that it is again an amendment that must be decided politically. As long as it clearly deals with the same subject matter and not with other legislation and does none of the other things that I have referred to, it is a motion that should be considered as being within the scope of the Bill.
The suggestion has been that Motions Nos. 19 and 70 go beyond the scope of the Bill and are contrary to its purpose. We would make an argument that applies in every instance. To be beyond the scope of the Bill, we must deal with something other than that which is contained in the long title of the Bill. To be beyond the scope of the Bill, we must offer alternatives that are not envisaged as being practical and possible within the definition as set out in the long title of the Bill. We have not done that. We have said that among the many things that could be done with this legislation, our Motions Nos. 19 and 70 should be considered as things that could possibly be done.
Again, Motions Nos. 19 and 70 do not require that the Government spend more money than is allowed by the Royal Recommendation. In fact, if implemented, they would require that the Government spend less than allowed by the Royal Recommendation. Our argument is again quite clear, as it was on the previous motion. While I do not deny for a moment that it is an amendment of consequence, it is one that will have considerable force and effect on the people who will be required to change as a result of the Bill. It is still quite clearly within the scope of the Bill and is still quite clearly within the Royal Recommendation. I would argue that those are the two primary tests of whether or not an amendment is admissible for the purposes of debate and disposition by the House of Commons.
I turn now to Motions Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 36 and 41. Motion No. 20 deals with the disposition of the Dominion coal lands. 1 am at a loss to understand why it goes beyond the scope of the Bill. The disposition of the Dominion coal lands is clearly mentioned in the Bill. The ultimate disposition of the Dominion coal lands is not spelled out, but again, I argue that our amendment simply indicates that if we are to dispose of the Dominion coal lands, we must dispose of them in such a way as would give the Province of British Columbia the jurisdiction. We do not suggest that anything else should happen.
Quite clearly, the question of the disposition of the Dominion coal lands is contained in the Bill, although I must confess that in this instance I suspect it should not be contained in the Bill. I do not think that that matter has any place in the Bill under any interpretation that any reasonable person would make when analysing the long title of the Bill. I frankly do not

October 7, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act believe that the long title in any way has any provision for disposition of the Dominion coal lands. If you recall. Madam Speaker, that is why on numerous occasions I have asked that the Bill be split. Quite frankly, and I have made the argument before, the long title of the Bill has nothing at all to do with the Dominion coal lands. It seemed to me as if it were stuck in there at the last minute by someone who, in the dead of night, thought that he could perhaps sneak it through.
My first request of the Speaker would be that the Speaker determine that that particular section is not appropriately in the Bill. However, if the Speaker were to determine that that is beyond the scope of the Speaker-and I ask that that be looked at-that it does not fall four-square within the long title and therefore ought not to be contained within the Bill, then I would ask that the amendment which we have placed be seen to be appropriate for debate and disposition, in a political sense, in the House of Commons.
I pose two questions for the Speaker in that regard. I would argue in a substantive way that the long title could never, never be seen to include the disposition of the coal lands. If that is beyond the scope, I would argue that Motion No. 20 is quite clearly a motion which should be dealt with politically. It deals with provisions the Government has placed in the Bill. We are suggesting how they should be disposed of. Our suggestion is that it should go to the Province of British Columbia, and I think that option is for the House of Commons to decide. I would ask, therefore, that Motion No. 20 be deemed to be suitable for debate and for disposition by the House of Commons.
1 turn now to Motions Nos. 20 and 21. In the Speaker's preliminary ruling on Motion No. 22 the Speaker has indicated a predisposition that the new subsection would enforce conditions and burdens on the Canadian Pacific Railway not contemplated in the Bill, as agreed by the House on second reading. I want to draw to your attention, Madam Speaker, that those kinds of things were not contemplated at second reading because it is inappropriate to contemplate them then. One can deal only with the principle of the Bill at second reading; it is not possible to contemplate the various and many clauses in the Bill at that time.
The principle of the Bill is to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain. We contend that one of the two parties to the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain is the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that it is not unreasonable for the House of Commons to want to impose restrictions or to direct how the legislation will affect one of the two major carriers. We were not in a position to debate that at second reading; it is clearly outside the scope of what is acceptable debate at second reading and it is, therefore, only acceptable in the form of an amendment.
It may well be that the amendment we have put before the House is not politically acceptable, but that is not the question before us, as I argued in the case of the Minister of Transport
(Mr. Axworthy); what is before us is whether it is procedurally proper to place it before the House.
In this amendment we are suggesting that just as there is in place today an agreement between the Government of Canada and the shippers, and just as this Bill intends to alter that agreement, the terms and conditions of the existing agreement and all of the terms and conditions surrounding that existing agreement are subject to discussion here. What was the subject of serious negotiations when the original agreement was entered into surely is a subject for continued negotiation when the change takes place. That is our argument in a nutshell- that if I enter into an agreement, the terms of conditions of that agreement are all on the table if we decide to change the agreement. That may not be the case if we decide to change it in some minor way, but in the case we are changing the agreement substantially.
The Government has decided to abolish the agreement that existed in Canada which required that the Crowsnest Pass freight rate, the statutory grain rate, should be in force and effect in perpetuity. The Government has decided to alter that; it has decided to impose a new regime. We contend that those questions which were legitimately before the participants at the time of the original agreement was signed are now open for debate.
I put it to the House that those participants never envisaged that the perpetuity of the agreement they were signing would somehow or other be abridged or interfered with the House of Commons at a later date, and that is why they made it a permanent feature. Be that as it may, they arranged certain things with the two railroads and with one in particular, CP, in return for an agreement which they signed. We are now dealing with that agreement. I contend that it is not beyond the scope of this Bill and that it is not contrary to the Royal Recommendation because what we are proposing requires no expenditure of any kind. It is not beyond the scope of the Bill to address in the House of Commons, by way of amendment, changes which would conform with the intent of the existing legislation to preserve the costs for western farmers to a level deemed at that point in time, to be acceptable.
I would therefore argue that on Motion No. 22 the Speaker agreed that a decision is in order on whether some compensatory factor by way of claim by the people of Canada upon the railroads, which were given significant benefits at the time they agreed to carry grain at a statutory rate should be made. A compensatory clause is not out of order.
Motion No. 23 follows on Motion No. 22 and therefore requires no further elaboration; the same basic argument would hold.
Motion No. 36 and Motion No. 41 prohibit the Administrator from regulating bodies other than railways. We believe it is legitimate to place a restriction and we do not see why the House of Commons would be denied the right to move amendments which would restrict the scope of the Administrator. It may be that from the point of view of the Government or the Official Opposition that is not desirable, but it is not what we
October 7, 1983

are arguing today. What we are arguing today is that it is appropriate that it be placed before the House of Commons.
Motion No. 36 and Motion No. 41 are consequential amendments and flow from Motion No. 18. If my argument on Motion No. 18 is acceptable, then 1 would argue that the arguments on Motions Nos. 36 and 41 are equally acceptable. They limit and narrow the scope of the Administrator to oversee only the railroads.


Mr. Benjamin:: 1 beg your pardon; I am wrong.


Ian Deans: My colleague now tells me he is wrong, so I will go back to it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It was not No. 29 that was deferred.


Ian Deans: In any event, I will come back to that. Motions Nos. 36 and 41 should be in order, just as Motion No. 18 should be in order. Again, I do not see how it could not be the prerogative of the House of Commons to offer amendments which narrow the scope of an Administrator who is to be defined in the Act and given responsibility for administering this Act. It may be that it is politically unacceptable. It may not fall within the view of the governing Party, or even the Official Opposition, that the administrative function should be narrow, but in our view it should be. We are not altering in any way the clear mandate set out in the long title; neither are we increasing the charge to the public purse. We are simply saying that the responsibilities which have been given to the Administrator are too broad and we would like to narrow them down a little. Perhaps we would like to narrow them down substantially, but the decision about whether or not they should be narrowed down is not a decision of admissibility, surely, it is a decision of politics, and we would argue that that is in fact the case.
I would go back for a moment to Motion No. 28. What we have said is that the Grain Transportation Committee should be made up somewhat differently from what the Government has suggested. We are not saying it should not exist, becaue we know we could vote against it. We are not saying there should be an additional charge on the public treasury, because it will be made up of similar numbers. We are saying it should be made up differently, that the participation in the actual committee itself should be a different participation from the one offeree by the Government.
It seems to this Party that that is a legitimate matter for debate. It is not a question of rewriting the Bill, of deviating from the long title or charging to the Government substantial new sums of money. At the moment I am sure the Government does not know exactly how much the Grain Transportation Committee will cost in any event. That is going to be very difficult to determine at this point in time because the cost will fluctuate. We are suggesting that an amendment to the numbers, and as to who should participate as full members, is surely clearly within the scope of the Bill. It is clearly within the definitions envisaged by the long title and is certainly not
Western Grain Transportation Act an infringement on the financial prerogatives of the Government as contained in the Royal Recommendation.
We would argue, therefore, that that amendment, again like the others, should be decided here. It is up to the Government if it does not want it, but it is certainly legitimate to say that instead of having a representative from this place, there should be a representative from another place, and that is what we are saying. We believe that motion should be considered and allowed to stand.
Motions Nos. 67 and 70 are consequential again and will depend upon your ruling on Motion No. 19. I just bring that to Your Honour's attention.
Motion No. 89 is a substantive motion in the sense that it is difficult to explain. Perhaps 1 might, if you will allow me, have my colleague from Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) explain exactly how that works, if that is acceptable. It will not take my colleague a great deal of time, but the subject is technical. I do not want to pretend for one moment that every technical part of this Bill is carefully tucked away in my memory; it is not.
Motion No. 151 brings in the question again of the British Columbia Railway and whether or not it should be considered as part of the grain transportation system. I suggest that quite clearly it is a part of the transportation system for the movement of grain. It is already a part of the transportation system for the movement of grain. The Bill purports to be an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain. It cannot be done properly without the British Columbia Railway being seen to be part of it.
We are suggesting, first of all, that our amendment is not beyond the scope of the Bill. Being beyond the scope would take it completely out of the question as to whether or not it deals with the transportation, shipping and handling of grain. We contend further that it would not cost money. Therefore, in that way it does not fall outside the Royal Recommendation. We are trying to spread the benefit available, if you will, among the farmers to the shippers who are legitimately in the business of shipping western grain. They are not going to ship any more grain if the British Columbia Railway is included; they will still ship the same amount. Therefore, the charge on the public treasury will be no more than the charge is today. We are suggesting, however, that since the British Columbia Railway is legitimately part of the over-all and integrated railroad system, transporting grain on the British Columbia Railway should be seen as acceptable within the terminology and definitions of this legislation.
I reinforce the point by asking this: If we are going to ship grain in western Canada-and I do not know what the amount will be-how will we ship it? It does not alter the amount we ship; the amount we ship is determined by the marketplace. If it is shipped on Canadian Pacific or Canadian National, it qualifies under this legislation. If it is shipped on the British Columbia Railway, it does not. We suggest that this is a political decision. This motion is clearly within the scope of the Bill. It is clearly not an infringement on the Royal Recommendation. It is, therefore, clearly in order.

October 7, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
I believe, in fact, if 1 may be so bold, that we could mount a substantive argument which would be acceptable in the final analysis, given the opportunity in the House of Commons. I see the former Minister of Transport sitting nodding his head. I do not know if he is nodding in agreement or whether he is simply amazed. I am not going to ask him. However, I would like to put to him-


Mr. Pepin:: I am just wondering if the BCR want to be included.


Ian Deans: Of course it did. It wants to be involved.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You should have thought about all this when you drafted the Bill.


Ian Deans: I think the Minister, given the opportunity, would agree with my argument that shipping of grain would not increase or decrease by including by the British Columbia Railway. Therefore, there would be no additional charge.


Jean-Luc Pepin: BCR already benefits, as you know.


Ian Deans: I have dealt with the Dominion coal lands question and that is left to your determination. There are two matters before you which can be dealt with, I believe, quite reasonably. Motion No. 173 amends the Schedule and includes new crops. I believe the difficulty with which the Chair and its advisers are faced would be that it would add to the cost as defined in the Royal Recommendation. I believe that may be their problem.
We contend that this is not the case. We are saying that farmers can only use their land for one crop. Therefore, if product "A" is eligible for benefits but product "B" would grow better and there is a market for it, then the farmers should be encouraged to grow product "B".


John Leslie Evans: Why do you think we are getting rid of the Crow?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That does not do it. You do not understand.


Ian Deans: Simply put, this amendment gives a broader scope to the farmer to determine which of the various products is needed and therefore should qualify under the shipment provisions. If he is not growing grain, then obviously he is not shipping grain. However, if he is growing another product for which there is a market, then quite clearly it can be shipped and will take the place of the grain. It is just that simple. We are not changing the amounts of money, neither are we moving outside of grain. I want to make that point forcefully. We are still talking about grain when we are talking about amendments. Therefore, we urge that you recognize, Madam Speaker, in your reconsideration, that Motion No. 173 should be determined politically rather than on a technical admissibility basis.
Finally, Motion No. 174-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Go another eight minutes.


Ian Deans: My colleague says go another eight minutes. You can tell I am going as fast as I can.
Motion No. 174 changes the title of the Bill for the very reason that you, Madam Speaker, were confused about in your third preliminary ruling. We have argued from day one that the purpose of the Bill was to eliminate the statutory freight rate and put in place a new regime. It may also be interpreted as having something to do, substantively or otherwise, with the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain. But nowhere in the long title of the Bill is there any mention at all about the intention of the Government to abolish the statutory grain rate. We find that most objectionable and we think the long title should reflect what is truly in the Bill.
Not only that, but in every single reference, whether one looks at Erskine May or back to British parliamentary tradition, you can find quite clearly that it says categorically that it must reflect what is contained in the Bill. I contend, Madam Speaker, there is no way that any person of average intelligence reading the long title of this Bill-and I put it to you for the last time, "an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof'-could interpret that to mean that we were abolishing the statutory grain rate.
So I return to the argument I made on the Dominion coal lands. Either the long title is wrong and out of order, or the Bill is wrong and out of order. I contend the Bill does not reflect what the long title says and I ask again that the Speaker make a decision on whether or not the Government can proceed with the Bill, given that the long title does not reflect those things. I ask that you make a determination that what is in this Bill is inappropriate and unacceptable, unless it is clearly set out having regard to the clearly understandable definitions of what would be acceptable under the long title.
I have argued since day one that the Bill deals with three matters and that they are unrelated. It deals with the setting up of a regime on transportation not only to handle grain but many other things. It deals with the question of the statutory rate and the decision of the Government to move politically to alter that. It deals with the disposition of the Dominion coal lands. Only one of those three things falls under what could reasonably be interpreted as having anything to do with the long title.
I have asked the Government, as you are aware, Madam Speaker, to alter the Bill in such a way as to allow it to be dealt with as it should have been dealt with. We in this Party are prepared to deal with the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain, and similarly but separately deal with the question of the disposition of the Dominion coal lands. We are prepared to debate the question of the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. But we do not believe this Bill is proper. We consider the long title as being abrogated because of the Government's insistence on dealing with three unrelated matters.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to look at the precedents involved and determine whether in fact what we now have before us is properly before us.
October 7, 1983


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I would ask if it would be in order now to respond to a point raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) yesterday regarding the Royal Recommendation.


Some Hon. Members:: One o'clock.


John Leslie Evans: Could I call it one o'clock, Madam Speaker?


Madam Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At I p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2.05 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When the House adjourned at one o'clock, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) had the floor.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the reason for my intervention at this time on the arguments with regard to procedure relates to an intervention made yesterday by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) with regard to whether or not Royal Recommendation had been provided in the required form for some of the Government's amendments. In his intervention, the Hon. Member relied upon two citations from Beauchesne to support his argument that a Royal Recommendation had indeed not been appropriately given. He first quoted Citation 548, found at page 183 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which states:
Amendments to Bills are out of order if they attempt to substitute an alternative scheme to that proposed with the Royal Recommendation. Journals, April 11, 1939, p. 325.
That particular citation was brought into conjunction with our Standing Order 79(6), which indicates:
When a recommendation of the Governor General is required in relation to any amendment to be proposed at the report stage of a bill, at least twenty-four hours written notice shall be given of the said recommendation and proposed amendment.
The Hon. Member then said: "Citation No. 548 in Beauchesne's gives me some difficulty in that it appears to contradict Standing Order 79(6)". I would agree that the interpretation he gave to Citation 548 does indeed contradict Standing Order 79(6). The solution to his dilemma was apparently found as he went back to Citation 540 of Beauchesne, which deals specifically with the Royal Recommendation and states:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the Royal Recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all-
The Hon. Member made much of the words "once for all". It continues:
-(unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of the charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard
Western Grain Transportation Act
thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
The following is the important part of the citation which the Hon. Member perhaps did not notice to a proper extent:
And this standard is binding not only on private Members but also on Ministers whose only advantage is that, as advisors of the Crown, they can present new or supplementary estimates or secure the Royal Recommendation to new or supplementary resolutions.
The problem in this particular case is that when Beauchesne's Fifth Edition was brought out in its revised form, the editorial changes were lacking in this particular area. Citations 540 and 548, referring to the nature of the Royal Recommendation, continue to put forward a point of view that reflects, in content, the procedures that were established prior to 1968 and prior to the time the rules were revised. In other words, when Beauchesne's Fifth came out it did not reflect the changes made in 1968 to the Standing Orders of the House.
[DOT] (KUO)
Prior to 1968, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, the procedure used with regard to Royal Recommendations dealt with a resolution. A resolution was put; the Minister would stand and put the recommendation. After 1968, this procedure was changed substantially and the present procedure does away with the resolution stage and substitutes the printed recommendation with the notice. Citation 540 at the end, as I mentioned, makes it clear that Ministers may:
-secure the Royal Recommendation to new or supplementary resolutions.
With the resolution stage abolished, this clearly must now be interpreted to mean that Ministers may obtain new or supplementary Royal Recommendations that are printed on the Notice Paper. Indeed, Standing Order 79(6), which was adopted unanimously by this House subsequently to the original writing of these obsolete citations in Beauchesne, provides exactly for this. The Rule, as I read earlier, is:
79(6) When a recommendation of the Governor General is required in relation to any amendment to be proposed at the report stage of a bill, at least twenty-four hours written notice shall be given of the said recommendation and proposed amendment.
This practice, the practice followed in Bill C-155 with regard to the amendments to which the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) made reference and objects to, is the precise procedure that has been followed in such cases for the past 15 years. I suggest the only error that was made is the error made by the Hon. Member for Yukon in not noticing that procedures had changed in 1968 and that these references he cited in Beauchesne were badly out of date.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) gave the Government arguments why Government motions, in our opinion, should be acceptable. I will not repeat those. I just have some concerns about eight consequential motions that I would like to address.
27862

October 7, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
The New Democratic Party attempted in committee, and again today their House leader attempted, to shift a number of definitions from the interpretation clauses No. 34 and No. 54 to the interpretation clause at the beginning of the Bill, which is Clause 2. In committee this was voted through. The majority felt that definitions such as "base rate-scale", "Crow benefit", "estimated eligible costs", are better off in Clause 34, in Part II, where the Bill deals with rates.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the arguments at the moment are as to the procedural acceptability and not as to whether or not the amendments should be in one section of the Bill or another. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is speaking about whether or not they should be in a different section of the Bill. The argument is really about their procedural acceptability and we remind him of that.


Jesse Philip Flis: That is exactly what I am leading up to, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would just hang on to his seat for a while.
Madam Speaker had ruled out of order the insertion of definitions in Clause 2, Motions Nos. 2 to 7 inclusive, Motions Nos. 12, 15 and 17, but she did not rule out of order the consequential deletions of the respective definitions from Clauses 34 and 54 to which I referred earlier, Motions Nos. 60, 62, 65, 100, 103, 128, 132 and 137.
I would like to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member who just intervened that Motion No. 60 is consequential to Motions Nos. 2 and 3; Motion No. 62 is consequential to Motion No. 5; Motion No. 65 is consequential to Motion No. 7; Motion No. 100 is consequential to Motion No. 4; Motion No. 103 is consequential to Motion No. 6; Motion No. 128 is consequential to Motion No. 12; Motion No. 132 is consequential to Motion No. 15; and Motion No. 137 is consequential to Motion No. 17. In the Government's view, the consequential motions should also be ruled out of order.
If the consequential Motions are accepted but the main motions are not, we could have some difficulty later on at debate stage and at division stage. I would ask Madam Speaker to take my intervention into consideration when she is deciding whether or not these consequential amendments should be out of order.
Second, the House Leader for the New Democratic Party went on at great length before we broke for lunch, stating that the coal lands should not be included in the Bill. He was attempting again to split the Bill into three parts. I do not feel that debate has any place here, yet the Hon. Member did not call order when his House Leader was talking about the coal lands.
I would like to draw to Madam Speaker's attention that Clause 62 is included in this Bill because the coal lands were included in the Crow's Nest Pass Act.


Mr. Mazankowski:: That has no bearing.


Jesse Philip Flis: The title of the Bill is "An Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof'. I think this clause pertains to that section of the title where it says "certain Acts in consequence thereof'. What Clause 62 attempts to do is to remove the $2 per tonne limit in extracting this coal which, by inference, would indicate and imply that the coal could not be exported. By lifting this $2 per tonne limit the inference now would be that the coal can be exported. Is this not what the Bill is all about-to improve our transportation system so we can improve our exports?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak specifically to Motion No. 1. I deferred to our House Leader yesterday because he outlined in a much broader perspective our Party's position with respect to the Speaker's preliminary ruling. I think it is fair to say, if you have followed the debate, Sir, that the dilemma with which the Speaker and indeed the House is faced is that there seems to be some confusion or lack of clear definition as to the intent and purpose of this Bill. The whole procedural debate has seemed to centre around that point. I think that caused the committee some difficulty as well. I know the distinguished Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport wrestled with that very issue.
It was interesting to note the Speaker's remarks yesterday. She pointed out that she had placed an interpretation on the intent of the Bill and she stated:
The purpose of the Bill, as I understand it, is to provide for new rates for the movement of grain through the Crowsnest Pass.
In the title of the Bill there is no mention of the Crow's Nest Pass Act or of the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. Bill C-155 simply indicates that it is:
An Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.
It is very clear, according to the submission of my House Leader and that of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, that as long as there is not a clear statement of intent and purpose attached to the Act, it will be very difficult to rule with any degree of accuracy I know the final decision will rest in your hands, Sir, but the fact remains, notwithstanding the ruling being made, one would have to say that under that broad title a lot of latitude should be provided for debating and considering motions which affect the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain. Unless there is entertained in the course of report stage a clear statement of purpose and intent, it will be compelling upon you to ensure that the widest possible latitude be allowed in the consideration of the presented motions.
In Motion No. 1, I attempted to define the statement of purpose and intent. It is consistent with the title of the Bill and with the contents of the Bill. Perhaps it is not all-encompassing but it more clearly defines what the Bill is actually setting out to do. It was patterned after a similar statement of purpose and intent contained in corresponding pieces of legislation
October 7, 1983

relating to transportation, namely, the National Transportation Act, which really should be considered as the umbrella piece of legislation under which this Bill will function, and the ports Bill. In my motion I attempted to define a similar statement of purpose. In part my motion reads:
It is hereby declared that an economic, efficient and reliable grain transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to protect the interests of the grain producers and to maintain the economic well-being and growth of western Canada, and that these objectives are most likely to be achieved under conditions ensuring that
(a)	grain producers retain the benefit of a statutory freight rate and are protected from freight rate increases disproportionate to international grain prices;
(b)	the railway companies and the Government of Canada accept a continuing obligation to provide producers with a special transportation rate for the movement of grain;
(c)	the Government of Canada makes an annual financial contribution to the grain transportation system to ensure fair compensation for the movement of grain;-
It was patterned after the thrust of Section 3 of the National Transportation Act which outlined the stated objective and purpose of that Bill. Unless we pull it all together, unless there is some clause that clearly defines the total objective of the legislation, we could bootleg clauses such as the one under Section 62 which, for all intents and purposes and for all times, transfers the Dominion coal lands to the federal Government and lifts the $2 per tonne freeze.
In terms of the necessity of its being included in the Bill, it is not required from a legal or technical point of view. Unless there is a broad statement of purpose, we could throw in everything but the kitchen sink. I submit that is wrong, but if we get away with it, Mr. Speaker, you will have to broaden the latitude under which you assess the procedural acceptability of the amendments being advanced.
The National Transportation Act is the umbrella piece of legislation under which most transportation laws and Acts are governed. In part, Section 3 reads:
II is hereby declared that an economic, efficient and adequate transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to protect the interests of the users of transportation and to maintain the economic well-being and growth of Canada, and that these objectives are most likely to be achieved when all modes of transport are able to compete under conditions ensuring that having due regard to national policy and to legal and constitutional requirements
(a)	regulation of all modes of transport will not be of such a nature as to restrict the ability of any mode of transport to compete freely with any other modes of transport;
(b)	each mode of transport, so far as practicable, bears a fair proportion of the real costs of the resources, facilities and services provided that mode of transport at public expense;-
Then it outlines the essential components of achieving that objective. If we look at the ports Bill which was recently considered by the House in this session, it is consistent with the aims and objectives of the National Transportation Act and the aims and objectives set out in the clause of this Bill. Again under Section 3 there is a statement of purpose and intent which reads:
It is hereby declared that the objective of the national ports policy for Canada is to create a port system that
Western Grain Transportation Act
(a)	is an effective instrument of support for the achievement of Canadian
international trade objectives and of national, regional and local economic and
social objectives;
(b)	is efficient;
(c)	provides accessibility and equitable treatment in the movement of goods
and persons to users of Canadian ports;
(d)	provides local port corporations with a high degree of autonomy-
The basic thrust of the new ports policy was to give local ports a greater amount of autonomy to run their own shop, so to speak. It is not only enshrined in the clause but it is enshrined in a statement of purpose and intent. It is very easy for a Speaker or anyone to rule whether in fact we are stepping beyond the bounds of the parameters contained therein.
My statement of purpose enshrined in Motion No. 1 clearly serves to fit that bill, clearly tries to help consolidate all the main objectives the piece of legislation attempts to achieve. I humbly submit that it is totally consistent with the thrust of the Bill and that it should be considered in terms of rounding out a piece of legislation which will be so all-encompassing. Unless you are prepared to accept such a statement of purpose as being procedurally acceptable, I submit the confusion in terms of whether or not an amendment is in order or consistent with the intent will continue to exist.
If you persist in suggesting in your preliminary ruling, Mr. Speaker, that Motion No. 1, which is a statement of purpose, is out of order, it will be important for you to give widest possible consideration to the motions included for debate because of the broadness of this piece of legislation. The sky is almost the limit when it comes to dealing with amendments and debate having regard to the facilitating, shipping and handling of western grain.
[DOT] (M30)
Failing the acceptability of Motion No. 1, I humbly suggest and plead with you, Sir, that you give the widest possible latitude in considering the amendments presented herewith, unless the bulk of the amendments go beyond the Royal Recommendation; that is clearly a very different matter. But in terms of going beyond the intent, my humble submission is that the sky is practically the limit when you have a Bill with the title "An Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof". That is a very all-encompassing title. As I have reviewed the motions, they are very specifically and directly attached to that broad objective. Moreover, they are pertinent to the clauses of the Bill. I hope you will consider that when you make your final ruling.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment very briefly on this. From a personal point of view, it makes little difference to me whether there is a preamble to the Bill. I can understand the desire on the part of some Members to have a preamble. In cases of complex legislation, it might be good to have it accompanied by a preamble. It would make more definite the purpose and intent of the Bill, and would make committee work more precise.

October 7, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
In presenting his argument yesterday, the Opposition House Leader clearly stated at page 27832 of Hansard, referring to Motion No. 1:
It would appear that the precedents would support the Chair. Citation 779 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition reads:
(2)	Substantive amendments to the preamble are inadmissible unless the
modification is proposed for purposes of clarification or uniformity.
This is not an amendment to a preamble. He further quoted:
(3)	Where the Bill, as introduced, does not contain a preamble, it is not
competent for the committee to introduce one.
I hasten to add that while this is not the committee, it would seem that if it is incompetent for the committee to introduce a preamble, then at report stage it is also incompetent for the House to introduce a preamble. If you read the preamble, it introduces some intention at least that is not within the Bill. I simply make those comments for the benefit of the Chair in making its ruling.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in committee we discussed at some length Motion No. 1 in the name of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). I wish I had the minutes with me. However, they are available for the Chair and the staff to peruse. Before getting into Motion No. 1, I want to refer briefly now, and 1 may refer later, to some remarks by the Parliamentary Secretary who emphasized in the long title of the Bill the words "and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof'.
It is drawing a very long bow, to put it mildly, to amend an Act allegedly in the long title that is in consequence of the object of the legislation when the Act being amended has nothing to do with the intent, limits or purposes of the legislation. For the Parliamentary Secretary to suggest that the opening up of the Dominion coal lands is in consequence of facilitating the transportation and handling of western grain is totally beyond me. That is why we have argued on many occasions that that section of the Bill is totally unrelated to the long title and should be split.
We in the Opposition had no choice but to move amendments to the Crow's Nest Pass Act of 1897 as it relates to the Dominion coal lands which in a preliminary ruling have been ruled out of order. On this issue we have to go back to square one. All that is in the Act of 1897 relating to coal is the price per ton of the coal. If you, Mr. Speaker, your advisers, the Parliamentary Secretary or anybody else can show me how that relates to an Act in consequence of the facilitating of the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain, 1 will be a monkey's uncle. I leave that point for now. There may be more said later.
I return to the arguments of the Hon. Member for Vegreville on the matter of a preamble. We have some Bills introduced with a preamble and some without. The argument is not whether a preamble is in order. The argument is whether Motion No, 1 goes beyond the Royal Recommendation and the intent of the legislation.
The Hon. Member for Vegreville has moved an excellent amendment. If it is accepted, we will want to move a lot of
amendments to it. The Hon. Member has done something the Government should have done. The long title is only two and one-half lines long. The Government, as the Chair has found, has run all over the lot with this Bill. Whether it is with regard to definitions or dealing with other pieces of legislation, the Government has not done its homework.
At a press conference at the end of May, the Government announced certain amendments to the Bill. When we waltzed into the committee, there sat the Government with egg on its face. It had not done its homework. It had the whole month of June to change the Royal Recommendation and bring in the preamble. If I recall, it was in the month of June that the Hon. Member for Vegreville was asking why there was no preamble. The Government had the whole month of June in which to prepare a preamble and bring in amendments to the Royal Recommendation. Instead of that, it came to committee with a boar's nest of a Bill on which it had not done its homework, and now it is asking the Chair and the Opposition Parties to sit back and correct its errors of omission and commission.
As I read Motion No. 1, Mr. Speaker, it does not go beyond the Royal Recommendation and it does not go beyond the intent of the Bill. It spells out in seven paragraphs the intent of the Bill. I do not know how that can be found to be out of order.
The Chair has said in its preliminary ruling that this motion is an attempt to introduce into the Bill a disguised preamble. In the first place, there is nothing disguised about it. It is my understanding after reading the motion that the Hon. Member for Vegreville is being perfectly straightforward. He is introducing a preamble.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A statement of purpose.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is a statement of purpose. That is what a preamble is. There is nothing disguised about it whatsoever. Preambles to legislation, are not unusual or to constitutions or a host of other things.
The Chair said in its preliminary ruling that this point is an interesting one. I am glad to know that the Chair is interested because we are as well. As the Chair has said, it is not often, it is true, that an Hon. Member attempts to amend a Bill in such a way as to include a clause setting out the objectives of Parliament in relation to the transportation of grain. However, Mr. Speaker, the long title says that the objective is to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of grain. I do not find that so unusual. The Hon. Member for Vegreville is only enlarging upon what is already in the long title.
In its preliminary ruling, the Chair also went on to say that the motion of the Hon. Member for Vegreville did not include the normal "whereas" paragraphs. If it will be helpful to the Chair and to the Hon. Member for Vegreville, I would be willing to move some subamendments that would add the "whereas's", which would be perfectly in order under the rules of the House at report stage.
October 7, 1983

The Chair went on to say that the Hon. Member is attempting to do indirectly what he cannot do directly. Well, Mr. Speaker, I dispute that. The Hon. Member is trying to do directly what the Government could do directly. He does not go beyond the Royal Recommendation or the purpose of the legislation. 1 believe that preambles should exist, particularly in the most important of legislation.


Mr. Lewycky:: We've got one in our Constitution.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, there is one in our Constitution, as my hon. colleague has said.
Motion No. 1, Mr. Speaker, allows for the inclusion in the legislation of an item which will allow the House to interpret the intent, purpose and royal prerogative of the legislation. Surely the proper forum to discuss and vote upon whether or not there should be a preamble, and the proper forum to discuss what is or is not allowable in that preamble, is the House of Commons.
There are precedents for and against preambles. There are examples in this country and many others, whether it be in Parliament or a portion of Parliament or in any of the host of organizations with constitutions and bylaws, of the existence of preambles. A preamble is almost a prerequisite.
I fail to understand the Chair's concern. A preamble should be admissible as long as it falls within the rules that guide us, the Royal Recommendation and the intent of the legislation. As long as it falls within those bounds, then surely an amendment from either the Government side or the Opposition side to incorporate a preamble, whether it be disguised or not, is perfectly in order.
I am intrigued by the wording used by the Hon. Member in his preamble. I know he has laboured long and hard on this and 1 think Members from all sides can agree with some parts of his preamble. There are some portions about which there will be debate and amendments, but in that case the House of Commons will sort out what the long time really means, and that is all a preamble is.
Consequential to a preamble, which is nothing more than an extension of the long time of a Bill, are amendments, and 1 know the Chair will hurriedly rule if an amendment goes beyond not only the long title but the preamble. We will all be guided by that.
I tried to move a motion in committee to amend the long title. My motion was contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary had to say about the Dominion coal lands having something to do with the handling and transportation of grain. The only avenue to have left is to move amendments regarding the long title of the Bill. We could perhaps move to make the long title read like a preamble. Would it be in order if we were to move an amendment to an amendment here at report stage that would make the long title read like a preamble? I doubt if anyone wants to see that on the front page of an Act of Parliament.
I submit, Sir, and urge upon the Chair that you reconsider most seriously the acceptability of the proposed Motion No. 1
Western Grain Transportation Act moved by the Hon. Member for Vegreville, find that it does not go beyond the bounds of the legislation and that it is nothing more than ancillary to the long title and the purposes of the legislation, because that is all it is.
[DOT] (M50)
If there are words, a paragraph, a sentence or a phrase in Motion No. 1 that go beyond the Royal Recommendation or beyond the purpose of the legislation, and it could be argued later, then I am sure the Hon. Member for Vegreville or any of his colleagues would be prepared to move a subamendment to correct it.
It seems to me that a long bow is being drawn, as was the case with the coal lands, and that extra lengths have been gone to to find out why we cannot have a preamble. If the preamble had to do with an operative clause or if it were an operative clause, then I suppose the Hon. Member for Vegreville would not have moved it in the first place. But it is not an operative clause; it spells out in very good language what the long title is all about. Surely the House should be entitled to discuss the pros and cons of what should be in a preamble. I think it opens up an area for the House of Commons. Even if it is a new regime-and I do not think it is-it places a requirement upon Government and Opposition Parties to discuss what the purport of the legislation is.
I close by saying to you, Mr. Speaker, that his is not really an issue requiring details of parliamentary precedents going back to 1066; this is a matter which is properly not only political, but also has to do with good legislative form. There is nothing wrong in the rules, and whether it is a new practice or whether there are precedents to allow it or disallow it is really not the point. This does not do violence to the purport of the legislation, nor does it do violence to the Royal Recommendation. Unless that can be shown, then it seems to me that Motion No. 1 is in order.


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the Chair some points on Motion No. 1 and the reasons why we on this side feel it is very important to have a statement of purpose included in the Bill. I will start by referring to the Speaker's initial ruling. On page 3 of the ruling, in the second paragraph, the Speaker states:
The purpose of the Bill, as I understand it-
I should like to emphasize the Speaker's words "as I understand it".
-is to provide for new rates for the movement of grain through the Crowsnest Pass.
As simple as that may sound, when you study the Bill and spend four months on it as the members of the Standing Committee on Transportation did, you find that is not its sole purpose.
To go back to previous Acts of Parliament, for instance, when the National Transportation Act was revised and brought in, it started with a preamble. That preamble, compared to the statement of purpose proposed by the Hon.

October 7, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), has been used not only by the people the National Transportation Act serves, but by the courts, by the Canadian Transport Commission, and to clarify and direct the interpretation of every subsequent piece of legislation included in the National Transportation Act.
1 should like to go through the purposes that are included in Bill C-155. When we travelled the country we were asked what the Bill is designed to do. When you look at it, you wonder if it is designed to increase rail capacity, if it is designed to move more grain compared to coal, sulphur, potash, lumber and other commodities. We have heard in this House that it is a job-creation Bill. Is the purpose of the Bill to create more employment in Canada? You wonder if it is to establish a new grain administration act, because that is included in it. Is it a Bill to provide more funding only for the railroads? Is it a Bill to make producers pay more for the movement of their products? Other Members have asked if it is to lift the freeze on the Dominion coal lands, or is it simply a Bill to dismantle the Crow rate?
The initial ruling of the Chair says:
-as I understand it, is to provide for new rates for the movement of grain through the Crowsnest Pass.
As I mentioned before, there are several other points included in the Bill. As you review the statement of purpose that the Hon. Member for Vegreville has presented, it has placed what Members on this side consider to be important points before the House.
If there are some things that other Members or the previous Minister of Transport find inconsistent with the objectives of Bill C-155, I should like to hear from them. When you look at the preamble you may find some definitions that are not actually consistent, but everything included in the statement of purpose proposed by the Hon. Member for Vegreville is consistent with the Act.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 think we would find this debate much more helpful if we could stick to what we are supposed to be debating, and that is the acceptability of Motion No. 1. The House Leader for the Official Opposition said on October 6, as reported at p. 27832 of Hansard:
I find myself in agreement with the Chair's concern with respect to Motion No. I.
I should like Members of the Opposition to give reasons why Madam Speaker should accept the preamble. The House Leader of that Party said that it was not acceptable. I do not think the debate is on whether the Bill should have a preamble or not; that is not what we are debating. The debate is whether Madam Speaker can accept Motion No. 1. The Conservative House Leader said, and I quote him again:
I find myself in agreement with the Chair's concern with respect to Motion No. 1.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is quite apparent that the Speaker made the ruling "-as I understand it, is to provide for new rates". That is the case that is being argued now, with the object of increasing understanding and knowledge so that decisions can be made to put a statement of purpose in the Bill. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that the statement of purpose does not go beyond the Royal Recommendation. It does not increase the moneys expended by the Crown and it does not change the intent of the Bill in any way. If in the eyes of the Parliamentary Secretary that statement of purpose does change the intent of the Bill in some way, then I am sure the Hon. Member for Vegreville and other Members on this side would be pleased to hear about it. We would take a very conciliatory attitude toward changes that Members of the Government would like to see included or excluded from the statement of purpose. However, Mr. Speaker, it does not change the Royal Recommendation or the economic package in which it comes, the financial burden on the Crown, and it does not distort the meaning of the Bill, but only in our opinion clarifies and enhances the ability of people to know what the intent of Bill C-155 is. The long title of the Bill is:
An Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.
The first words of Motion No. 1 read:
1. It is hereby declared that an economic, efficient and reliable transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to protect the interests of the grain producers and to maintain the economic well-being and growth of western Canada-
There is nothing inconsistent in those words. But if one continues to read one sees that it enunciates the other directions which are in this Act. Those of us who have taken part in this debate, and those of us who are in this Chamber now, will not be the only people interpreting this Act. If by some chance this Bill passes, there will be generations of grain producers, railroaders, legal counsel and Parliamentarians ail trying to interpret the meaning of Bill C-155. I am not a suspicious man, but the reason could be that the Government would wish to have this open to other interpretations which we have not foreseen. 1 would not say that of the previous Minister of Transport because he worked on this Bill in a very open and forthright manner. I am sure he would like to see a statement of purpose for the Bill on which he spent 18 months. The previous Minister of Transport, on several occasions when he met with the standing committee, asked us to assist him in defining the purpose of Bill C-155. I see the former Minister of Transport now in the House and he is smiling. The present Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), who is not in the House, also asked for our assistance when he came to the Standing Committee on Transport. The Government has even presented amendments which have been beyond the scope of the Bill and which have been found in the eyes of the Chair not to be in order. However, through the art of conciliation and through an understanding that we are working as a group to make this Bill the best Bill we possibly can, there will be discussion and debate on other pieces of this legislation which have been found out of order.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that unless the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister can point out where this motion goes
October 7, 1983

beyond the Royal Recommendation, beyond the expenditures of the Crown, or changes the interpretation and meaning of this Bill, 1 feel it would be incumbent on us, for the sake of generations to come, to clarify the rationale of Bill C-155 with a statement of purpose. I am certainly waiting to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary. I hope he will consider the feeling people might have when they view Bill C-155 without a statement of purpose. It may well be that once again the Government does not want to clarify it, because the railroads continue to interpret transportation Acts, and if the railroads are allowed to continue to do that, it may well be the reason why the Government does not want a statement of purpose in the Bill. That way the railroads could continue to have their own way with Bill C-155.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Hon. Members will realize I have just this moment occupied the chair. As I understand it, the House is presently considering points of order related to the Bill before the House. Therefore, I would need to understand whether the Hon. Member is rising to debate Motion No. 33 or whether he is rising on a point of order.


J. Michael Forrestall: At three o'clock in the afternoon of the Thanksgiving weekend, I do not need a lecture upon what is going on in the Chamber.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member has not received a lecture. I indicated that because I am newly arrived in the chair I would appreciate the Hon. Member's instruction as to whether he is rising on a point of order or is rising to debate Motion No. 33. It was a simple request.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Chair is now entertaining interventions with respect to the procedural acceptability of motions. It may well be that in the Chair's judgment and wisdom, the debate being on the first motion presented by the distinguished Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), it may be somewhat improper for me to intervene. If it is quite proper, I assure you that I do know what the Chamber is doing. God knows, at three o'clock on a Friday afternoon of Thanksgiving weekend, everyone here not only knows the purpose for which the House is sitting, but is here because the matter is somewhat serious.
The intervention I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, flows in part from the intervention made by our House Leader yesterday in which he quite clearly, and I believe quite properly, interpreted part of Beauchesne's citations with respect to an amending Bill. My purpose in intervening at this point is to argue that in fact the Bill is not an amending Bill but is a Bill which stands on its own. Beauchesne, in a number of places- and other authorities-quite properly deals with the two different types of Bills. I would like to suggest that Bill C-155 is not an amending Bill but rather is a Bill which stands on its own.
The National Transportation Act, that ancient and not very venerable piece of legislation which governs transportation in Canada today, after 10 or 15 years is somewhat out of date, a
Western Grain Transportation Act
fact to which the former Minister of Transport can attest. However, it does have a statement of purpose, a statement of objectives. Whether it is called a preamble, or whatever, I suggest is a matter of semantics. It does have the same intent and the same impact. I suggest that the Bill presently in front of us is a Bill of the same nature as the National Transportation Act itself. In other words, it is a Bill which stands on its own. The National Transportation Act, other than in character, does not refer to this Bill. The National Transportation Act, as the former Minister of Transport is well aware, is one which this Chamber must deal with. Had we, in fact, dealt with any uncertainty with respect to the nature of that legislation, the present Bill in front of us might not have arisen.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-155 does not contain a statement of purpose, nor a preamble. We are basing our arguments in large measure with respect to the extension or the clarification of the long title-which I believe is quite possible on the admissibility of the motion. The motion is one which I believe the Chair must, in some respects, look at closely. It must determine in its wisdom whether or not technically such a motion is or is not admissible, because in the final analysis this Chamber, by unanimous consent, can do whatever it wants.
Before the Opposition House Leader rose to make his main interventions, we knew that the Minister was in fact quite open and amenable to such a statement of purpose. So it is not a question of whether or not there is a strong position for or against the preamble as set out by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) in his amendment.
I might just add that it is not just the National Transportation Act to which I relate this Act as an Act standing on its own. Just recently this Chamber dealt with a new national ports Bill. I contend it can be argued that that was not an amending Bill but rather it stood on its own. In fact it contained a preamble, a statement of purpose, which was the product of debate of an amendment, of consensus and agreement. So it is not in that sense unique. While the Chair's ruling with respect to the introduction of a preamble, when in fact one is not there, may stand as technically correct, I suggest that it does not stand up very well to any other test you want to apply. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux's ruling some ten years ago made this point relatively clear, at least in my judgment. If it has been quoted extensively in this debate I assure the House and the Chair I will not deal with it at any undue length. However, in a ruling at page 395 of the Journals of June 11, 1973, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, ruling on a motion by the distinguished then Hon. Member for Calgary North, Mr. Woolliams, said:
In other words, we cannot amend the enacting clause of the bill. What the honourable Member for Calgary North sought to do by amending the enacting clause and making it a combination of enacting clause and preamble is to introduce a preamble which is not before us in the bill. That of course would be a logical consequence of the action of the House if we decided to consider this amendment and if it were passed.
October 7, 1983

Western Grain Transportation Act
Well, we are not dealing with that, although it would seem quite natural and logical to draw upon the Chair's ruling that that in fact had to be followed. I am suggesting that in my judgment I do not believe it does.
Again, I say this is not an amendment to an existing preamble, it is rather a statement of purposes and objectives which have the effect of expanding the long title. We know from Beauchesne's, Mr. Speaker, that in fact that is possible. The Opposition House Leader, in his quite brilliant summation yesterday of the Chair's position, cited Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 779, and I will simply repeat it. It reads:
Substantive amendments to the preamble are inadmissible unless the modification is proposed for purposes of clarification or uniformity. Journals, January 19, 1970, p. 323.
But we are not substantially altering anything; we are clarifying the objectives, usefulness and utility of the Bill itself. I think the failure to do this will call into question down the road how this Chamber and the Ministries will have to deal with the form and structure of motions in front of us. It seems to me this Chamber has no right to dictate the form and structure of matters which will in the future come before us. It seems to me that where there is a doubt, and here there would appear to be a question at least, the Chair might consider in its wisdom the advisability of allowing the distinguished Hon. Member for Vegreville to put his motion so that in fact we might get on with debating it in its proper sequence in time.
1 thank you for the opportunity to intervene briefly, Mr. Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address what I think to be a very important point of order raised by Motion No. 1. If I may, I want to take a slightly different point of view than I think has been put forward to you up to this point. In dealing with legislation there is a well established rule which has been followed across the land that whenever courts are reviewing legislation passed in the House of Commons they are restricted to the words of the legislation. I do not have a list of the authorities, but there are many cases in which courts have held that in determining the meaning or the interpretation to be given to any legislation passed by the House of Commons they are not able to go behind the legislation. Rather, they have to look at the statute and make their interpretation based on that wording.
While the debates of the House of Commons as recorded in Hansard are all very interesting, the courts are not obliged, indeed they are discouraged from looking at that kind of ancilliary matter in order to determine what the proper intention of Parliament is, was or should be. The reason I mention that principle of procedure in the courts is that I think it is very germane when we consider the content of Motion No. 1.
1 see at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, that I will have a receptive ear to what I want to say. Not that I would not have had it from your predecessor in the Chair a moment ago, but by the colour of your coat and the way you are listening with such great interest I know you will be very agreeable to and support what I say now.


Laverne Lewycky: Let's have a ruling now.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Now is our chance to take control, boys! Of course, I jest.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, is it proper in this House for an Hon. Member to try to influence the Chair through flattery?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The answer is yes.
I see the Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) is here today. When he was Minister of Transport I wish he had made the same sort of proposition with respect to this legislation and sent a peace corps out to western Canada rather than to Central America. We would have had far more success in getting a consensus in western Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was a one-man peace corps.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A one-man peace corps!
Mr. Speaker, I want to put forth the serious proposition concerning what has been proposed in the amendment of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski), that quite a different point of view should be taken by the Chair and, indeed, by Hon. Members on the Government side who appear to be arguing against the acceptance of the motion. It seems to me that there is a kind of reverse onus on the propositions put forward in the motion and upon Government Members. I say that the Hon. Member for Vegreville, in the amendment that is now being discussed, Motion No. 1, has stated some of the essential objectives of the legislation.
If, in fact, Government Members want to stand up and suggest that it is not an objective of the Bill that "an economic, efficient and reliable grain transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to protect the interest of the grain producer and to maintain the economic well-being and growth of western Canada, and that these objectives are most likely to be achieved under conditions ensuring that, and then going on with the specific items in Motion No. 1, it is up to them to say that that is not the intention of the legislation. They should say that that is inconsistent with what is contained in the legislation. It is that simple. In other words, they cannot have it both ways.
I respect the fact that Madam Speaker raised some concern with regard to the actual nature of the amendment being proposed by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. In one sense, it was a preliminary ruling. With the greatest of deference let me say that anyone who is of the opinion that the proposals and statements contained in the motion are not fundamental and essential to a proper understanding and interpretation of the Bill is doing a disservice to the legislation. Coming from western Canada, I feel it is absolutely essential for people who will be administering the legislation to have a clear statement of its principles so that when it comes to a question of interpretation of any part, provision, section, sentence, or
October 7, 1983

concept, they will be able to go to the statement contained in the legislation for interpretation.
Is there anyone on the Government side who is prepared to stand up and suggest that it is objectionable to the Government that grain producers should retain the benefit of a statutory freight rate and be protected from freight rate increases disproportionate to international grain prices? Are Government Members suggesting that that should not be part of the objectives of the Bill?


Jesse Philip Flis: What does that have to do with what is before us as to whether the motion is acceptable or not? Speak to what is before the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Precisely. Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary is so terribly sensitive. I have now struck a chord with the Government spokesman on the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary is nervous and twitchy, knowing how it is almost impossible to stand up and simply state a fact as to whether that is the Government's position. If that is inconsistent, let him rise and argue that the amendment bears no relationship to the intentions of the Bill. That is the relevance, and that is what I am discussing. I am suggesting that now is the time for Hon. Members opposite to stand up and tell the people in western Canada, indeed across the whole country, whether or not what is contained in Motion No. 1 is a fair statement of the purposes of the legislation. I am not requesting a long statement, but let the Hon. Member just stand and say, for example, "No. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government, we do not agree that the railway companies and the Government of Canada should accept a continuing obligation to provide producers with a special transportation rate for the movement of grain". If that is not the Government's policy, let him stand up.
Here comes the Minister now. He is probably the man who is best able to speak on behalf of the Government in the matter. If the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) feels that that is not an objective of the legislation, let him rise during the debate and say so in front of the people of Canada. Then we can understand how the Speaker will be able to suggest that that is not appropriate because it is a new, novel item, that is not part of the intention of the legislation. Then we will not be under any illusions.
The Minister of Transport is ready to be involved in this procedural debate. He should speak to the question as to whether or not the Government believes that the Government of Canada should make an annual financial contribution to the grain transportation system to ensure fair compensation for the movement of grain. Is this part of the intention contained in the legislation? Is it part of the intention of the Government in the legislation that the railway companies provide adequate equipment and plant capacity to move grain efficiently and reliably? I ask the Minister simply to stand in his place and tell me whether it is inconsistent with the Government's intention in the legislation that the natural advantages of western agriculture be recognized and strengthened. I use these only as examples of the very simple way in which the matter could be
Western Grain Transportation Act
disposed of and dispatched. I make this proposition to you, Mr. Speaker, as strongly as I can. However, I see that since another person has just taken the chair, my argument will probably have to be repeated.


An Hon. Member:: No, don't do that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It was so forceful and effective on the previous occupant of the Chair, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), that I think I was actually convincing him. He was nodding in agreement over everything 1 was saying.
I put forward a very simple proposition that no one from the Government side has yet been heard to say that there is anything stated in Motion No. 1 which is not in agreement with the intention of the Bill. We can argue in the substantive debate that the Bill does not accomplish the purposes set forth in Motion No. 1.


Jesse Philip Flis: Your House Leader ruled it out of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My House Leader is an eminent procedural expert. If my House Leader ruled it out of order, that means that he has now been appointed as the Speaker of the House. I do not think that that particular appointment would be one the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would entertain at this time in history. I make no further comment on that.


Mr. Huntington:: Maybe the former Minister will.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think I have made my case very strongly that there have been no nay-sayers from the Government side. Another item in Motion No. 1 is the provision that the economic distortions within the agriculture sector stemming from a statutory rate will be reduced for livestock products and processed agricultural products, and finally, as contained in subparagraph (g), that grain producers will receive adequate guarantees of system performance and service.
Concerning each of these items to which I have referred, if Government Members feel that such is not a reasonable statement of the purpose of the Bill, they can stand up right now and put an end, I suppose, to the entire procedural debate, by saying, "That is not our intention". However, once one starts off with a proposition that there has been no statement to the contrary by the Government spokesman or by the Minister of Transport, then that should set the ground for the legitimacy of the motion, because one would then consider the very narrow point as to whether or not it should be ruled objectionable because it is, in effect, a preamble.
I want to deal with the secondary point very briefly. Should this be considered as a mere preamble, or should it be considered as a fundamental part of the legislation which, in fact, elucidates the provisions of the legislation for greater clarity? In the old days, as my colleague said, of "8-cylinder words", I was able to charge $75 an hour for this kind of dissertation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Seventy-five cents.

October 7, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Now I am in politics and work for something like 50 cents an hour.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You are like the railways. You are overpaid. Mr. Pepin: Grossly.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The only time that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) makes an effective statement is when he is either behind the curtains or in the Members' lobby.
Now that I have established the fact that there has been no objection on the part of the Government to the fundamental statements, is it not fair for us to assume that this is an important and justifiable amendment that should be brought forward in this particular legislation? I say to Your Honour, with the greatest of deference with regard to some of the contrary arguments, that, in my estimation, it is the most helpful and reasonable amendment that could be introduced, and we have not heard any objection to its being inconsistent with the intentions of the Government. It is one which will make the legislation far more clear in terms of interpretation by the courts.
I go back to the original proposition. If that is not the case, then it is a very simple matter for Government Members, Members on the Treasury bench, the Minister of Transport, or whoever, to stand up and simply say that this is not an acceptable amendment because these are not the intentions of the Government of Canada with respect to the legislation contained in Bill C-155.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As was indicated earlier through an exchange between the Hon. Member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and myself, I was not clear whether Hon. Members were continuing to rise on points of order. I think the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) has indicated that he wishes to rise on a point of order. Unless Hon. Members indicate that they want to rise on a point of order with those words, it is difficult for the Chair to know. The understanding of the Chair at the moment is that no other Hon. Member, other than the Hon. Member for Assiniboia, wishes to contribute to the points of order. But, of course, I will be guided by any Hon. Member who stands up in that regard.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order with regard to the acceptability of Motion No. 1 as it relates to Bill C-155. For the record let me read what Bill C-155 states:
An Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.
Relating to Motion No. 1 put forward by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) in his opening statement on the motion he very clearly indicated, in much the same wording as the Bill:
It is hereby declared that an economic, efficient and reliable grain transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to protect the interests of the grain producers_
Without elaborating on the compatibility of the two statements, namely and on Motion No. 1 and the Bill, the relevance, I would like to go on a little further to subparagraph
(a)	. It deals directly with international grain prices and with freight. It deals with matters relating particularly to grain, its production and transportation. Subparagraph (b) reads:
(b)	the railway companies and the Government of Canada accept a continuing obligation to provide producers with a special transportation rate for the movement of grain.
What could be more relevant to the debate on such a Bill than Subparagraph (b) of Motion No. 1? Subparagraph (c) reads:
(c)	the Government of Canada makes an annual financial contribution to the grain transportation system to ensure fair compensation for the movement of grain.
If there were any motion which would be relevant, Mr. Speaker, certainly it would be the one put forward by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. Again and again it deals with the product of western Canada with which the Bill deals. The product is named in the Bill as grain, and the amendments are in consequence thereof. This is directly relevant to the Bill. If Motion No. 1 is not relevant, then none of the motions are relevant.
Subparagraph (d) of Motion No. 1 reads:
(d)	the railway companies provide adequate equipment and plant capacity to move grain efficiently and reliably.
And Subparagraph (e) reads:
(e)	the natural advantages of western agriculture are recognized and strengthened.
At this point I would like to read from the policy statement on western rail transportation the words of the former Minister of Transport who said much the same thing as is said in Motion No. 1. He said:
The Government believes that the arrangements it is now seeking are as important to western economic development in the future as the Statutory rate was in the past. To grain farmers no less than to any group in western Canada, it is essential to have the assurance for the future of a healthy and efficient transportation system capable of moving increasing volumes of their product. In addition, the Government believes that the measures it is proposing will broaden the range of choices open to agricultural producers and thereby lead to a stronger and more diversified western economy.
In a statement of purpose put forward by the former Minister of Transport, we have almost the same wording as that put forward by the Hon. Member for Vegreville in his motion. Subparagraph (g) of Motion No. 1 reads:
(g) grain producers receive adequate guarantees of system performance and service.
I want to contend that this is most important to the Bill and it is not important to the outcome of the Bill. I would like to say at this point that I believe the committee did an in-depth study and it was dedicated to finding some very serious solutions to problems that exist. We had witnesses' testimony from right across the country, including Ottawa, as to how relevant that is. We heard representation from western pro-
October 7, 1983

ducers. In most cases at meetings that I attended the most important thing pointed out was the movement and transportation of grain. At the end of Motion No. 1 we read:
-and this Act is enacted in accordance with and for the attainment of so many of these objectives as fall within the purview of subject matters under the jurisdiction of Parliament relating to grain transportation.
I submit that Motion No. 1 moved by the Hon. Member for Vegreville is most relevant. I hope the Chair will see fit to have this become part of the Bill, and that the transportation of grain and the producers affected will benefit most from the work of this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The understanding of the Chair is that the House may be ready to move to debate on Motion No. 33.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 have already indicated that if some Hon. Member rises on a point of order I will recognize him. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) rises on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On the preliminary rulings of Madam Speaker on Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, she says specifically that these amendments to Clause 2 of the Bill are substantive amendments. I wish to present arguments to indicate that Motions No. 2 to at least Motion No. 12 are merely housekeeping amendments. If one examines Motion No. 2, one will see that the wording is identical to the wording in the original Bill or perhaps even that in the Bill as reported back. Motion No. 2, as is the case with Motion No. 3, transfers definitions from Clause 34 to Clause 2. They have the same wording. I do not know what is substantive about it.
We argued about and discussed this matter at some length in committee. I refer the Chair to the minutes of the committees' proceedings of August 8 wherein the Chairman indicated that he would like counsel for the officials to answer Mr. Reid's question. Mr. Lefebvre, general counsel for Transport Canada said:
-there are no clear and fast rules as to where you put definitions when you draft a bill. You put them where you think they will be the most helpful, where the access to the definitions will be the easiest. Sometimes, if you look at this particular bill, we have some at the beginning. We judged it best not to put the definitions that are now in Parts II and III at the beginning, for the main reason they are not useful to the first 30 clauses.
Mr. Lefebvre suggested that to have three or four pages of definitions at the beginning of the Bill would make it more difficult to identify the particular definition needed for the first part. Also he suggested that the definitions were quite closely related to Parts II and III and that it would be advisable, when dealing with rates, for example, to have only the definitions that relate to them.
I and others in the committee argued the opposite, that it was more convenient, simpler and easier to peruse the Bill or, if it were to pass, to peruse the Act of Parliament, if we knew
Western Grain Transportation Act
we had to go to only one place in the Bill to find the definitions. We argued that it did not matter which clause of the Bill we looked at after Clause 2, that we should only have to go to one place in the Bill to find the definitions. I submit that there is nothing substantive about that. It is purely a matter of opinion as to where is the best place to locate definitions. A number of us in committee took the position that it was better to have them all in the same clause. Counsel for Transport Canada thought it was better to have definitions for each clause at the head of each clause.
The problem we found was that the definition of one clause often applied to another clause and that, in going through the Bill, we were bouncing back and forth between three or four places because a definition which might appear at the head of Clause 3 could also apply to Clause 4 or Clause 5 or even back to Part II. That was another reason for submitting the amendments, which the committee Chairman did not rule out of order.
The initial reaction of the committee Chairman was that we could not move an amendment that amended two clauses at the same time. I was very careful to ensure that my amendment in committee and my Motion No. 2 amended only one clause. Also, in committee we made it clear that should my amendment to consolidate the definitions in Clause 2 carry, at a later proceeding in committee I would move a consequential amendment deleting the definition from Clause 34, Clause 54 or wherever else it might appear.
According to the committee minutes, when the Chairman read my amendment to Clause 2, the following exchange took place:


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is in order.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: That is in order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I see.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The definition of "base rate scale" and the definition of "CN adjustment".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And I guarantee I will move the consequential amendment when we get to the other part of the bill.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I thought you would.
How can anyone construe that Motions Nos. 2 to 19 are substantive? They only move a definition from one part of the Bill to another. It escapes me completely. Where my motions move exactly the same words from one part of the Bill to another, I submit they are in order. They are not substantive. They are purely housekeeping, and it is the most convenient and easiest way to find definitions in a Bill. Counsel for Transport Canada and I disagreed, but that did not mean my amendments were out of order. In fact, the committee Chairman allowed them.
If any of the motions from Motion No. 1 to Motion No. 19 or thereafter change the words of the definition in transferring it from one clause to another, then of course the Chair would have to consider whether or not they exceed the Royal Recommendation or go beyond the intent of the Bill. In that event the Chair will have to decide which of my motions affecting definitions not only transfers them from one clause to another but substantively changes the wording. Then we would need to

October 7, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act argue whether or not they are substantive changes and go beyond the intent of the legislation or of the Royal Recommendation. Of course, this would only apply in the case where my motions made a change in the wording of the definitions. Even if we have made a change in the wording, if any can be found, then it must be pointed out where they are in violation of the Royal Recommendation and the intent of the legislation or where they go beyond the intent of the legislation. Should the Chair feel in a preliminary way that that is the case with those motions, naturally we would want to make proposals or argue as to any changes in wording.
I was somewhat taken aback with the amount of time spent on, and attention given to, Motion No. 2 by both the Chair and the House Leader for the Official Opposition. All it does is take some words out of Clause 34 and put them in Clause 2. For some reason that has not been explained to me, the Chair, its advisers and the House Leader for the Official Opposition are excited about that. I do not understand all the excitement and fuss.
The argument in committee was to do it one of two ways. The definitions would be all in one clause, so that people would know where to find them, or scattered throughout several clauses. There are good arguments for both sides. We took the view, and hence my amendments in committee and consequently the same amendments at report stage, that for convenience, good housekeeping and orderliness in a Bill all the definitions should be in one clause. It could be called the definitions clause. The definitions would all be in one place. When looking at subsequent clauses in the Bill, you would know where to find the definition because it would state "as defined in Clause 2". It would not matter whether you were dealing with Clause 34, Clause 54 or the Schedule. We tried bringing in a motion which would transfer the definition of grains from the Schedule to Clause 2. Schedule 1 defines grains. I thought definitions were to be in the Bill, not the Schedule.
The argument is whether or not definitions should be located in one clause. In subsequent clauses it would state "as defined in Clause 2". Without this, in Clause 34 there could be a definition affecting Clause 54. You would have to bounce back and forth in the Bill. Surely that is not good housekeeping. It is not an orderly manner in which to draft legislation.
When the committee was still hearing witnesses, and in particularly during the clause-by-clause study in the past few weeks of our deliberations, it became apparent that the Government had not done its homework, not only on Royal Recommendations but on its own amendments. It had not done its homework on the drafting of the Bill. It was determined to meet the June 30 deadline, then the September 12 deadline and then the Thanksgiving weekend deadline. I do not know what the next deadline will be.
I remind the Parliamentary Secretary of the definition of a deadline. In the North American vernacular, a deadline means a line is drawn and if you cross it, you are dead. I remind the
Parliamentary Secretary that if he insists on crossing that line he will be dead, politically that is.
Why all the fuss about these amendments? They merely ask the House to decide on the most orderly, convenient and practical way to house the definitions in the Bill. We submit that all the definitions should be in one clause and that all subsequent clauses have the reference "as defined in Clause 2". The definitions would be in alphabetical order in the marginal notes. Why all the fuss? Why is the Chair so concerned about moving a paragraph from one part of the Bill to another? I do not understand why the Chair is upset.
How can that be construed as substantive? Substantive means substantial. Substantial mean there have to be some kind of changes in the wording that would make it a substantive amendment. There is nothing in these motions which transfer definitions that is substantive.
The Chairman of the committee allowed the committee to deal with those motions. How they were dealt with in the committee is irrelevant. The point is they were in order in the committee and should be in order in this House. This is a housekeeping matter, how a Bill should be consructed and whether the subjects should be located in one part or another. It is not substantive.
Motions Nos. 2 to 19, 59, 64, 66, 67, 71, 129, 134, 139 and 145 which deal with definitions are listed by Madam Speaker when she gave her reasons for the unacceptability of certain motions. The motions she has listed do not make any change in the wording. They do nothing more than transfer the position of a definition from one place in the Bill to another. They are not substantive. This is nothing more than an attempt by the Government, counsel for the Department of Transport, and Members of the Opposition to arrive at a conclusion as to where definitions should be located in the legislation. That is all there is to it. If any of the motions enumerated by Madam Speaker in giving her reasons for unacceptability contain changes of wording as well as transfer a definition from one part of the Bill to Clause 2, we will want to discuss with the Chair whether those motions are substantive, go beyond the intent of the legislation, or exceed the Royal Recommendation.
We may be wrong in some of those, but I do not know whether the Chair has sorted out which of these motions makes no changes in wording and which makes a change in wording. I would be grateful to have from the Chair a list of the motions transferring definitions from Clauses 34 and 54 to Clause 2. Also, I would be grateful to have from the Chair a list of those motions which change the wording of the definition, and then I would like to have reasons from the Chair for their unacceptability, and I would want to discuss this at an appropriate time two or three days hence.
In the meantime, Sir, as far as Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, they use the same wording as used in Clauses 34 or 54, and we have only moved to have those words transferred from those clauses to Clause 2 in order to consolidate all the definitions into Clause 2. I am anxious to hear
October 7, 1983

what is substantive about those motions and I am anxious to find out why they are considered substantive. I have not heard any reasons yet but have only heard the straight statement that they are substantive. I would like to know how, since when and why.
Those motions are not substantive. They were not substantive in committee, and, goodness knows, we discussed a whole series of motions for some period of time in committee. We had input from counsel for the committee, counsel for the Ministry of Transport, and we had the decision of the Chairman of the committee. We had discussion in debate, voted on the amendments and dealt with them one way or another.
The motions that are here now at report stage were moved in an attempt to continue to provide for a consolidation of definitions under Clause 2 so that the definitions are not scattered throughout the whole Bill.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my arguments have proved convincing. I hope that Hon. Members of the Official Opposition and Hon. Members on the Government side will agree that a great deal more has been made of this than was necessary in the first place. The very worthwhile and worthy Chairman of the committee felt that these motions needed to be dealt with, and we dealt with them. I am not sure if I won or if I lost on some, all or any of them, but that is not the point.
In committee, our legal advisers did not find these motions substantive. They said that there was no hard and fast rule as to where definitions should be located. There was agreement about that. Even though there may have been disagreement about the intent of my amendments, there was no disagreement about the fact that the definitions could be located anywhere in the Bill.
We are arguing that all of the definitions should be located in Clause 2 and that every clause thereafter should say, "as defined in Clause 2," which would create a simple, convenient, expedient and well drafted piece of legislation.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things that certainly annoyed all the Members on the Opposition side, and even annoyed some of the Government Members in committee, was the fact that we were presented with a legislation that was poorly drafted in terms of its wording and the location of its words, leaving aside any substantive arguments about the Crow rate or anything else. The legislation was a botched-up job.
I certainly resented, and I believe that some of my colleagues in committee also resented, that we were trying to rewrite a Bill that the Government should have written properly itself before it was even presented to Parliament. The Government did not do that. It blew it. Once we got into the nitty-gritty of clause-by-clause examination of the Bill, I am sure the former Minister of Transport knows well that there must have been-and if there was not there should have been-some heads rolling in the legislative drafting department of the Department of Transport or perhaps the Justice Department. The drafting department simply did not do a good job, Mr. Speaker.
Western Grain Transportation Act
A great many of the amendments moved by my friend, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), and by myself were moved in an attempt to do two things. One was to get a piece of legislation that would be the kind that would be drafted if he were the Minister of Transport or to get a piece of legislation that would be the kind that would be drafted if I were the Minister of Transport. The other reason for a great many of his amendments and mine was to try to clean up the act of the Ministry. We were stuck with trying to rewrite legislation in a proper form with proper wording. That really should not be the job of the committee and would not be the job of the committee if, prior to the Bill being submitted, the Government had thoroughly considered it, instead of botching it up in a hurried attempt to meet deadlines of June 30, September 12 and Thanksgiving. 1 would like to tell the Government that if it meets a deadline set at Christmas 1984, it will be lucky.
The Government should stop setting deadlines because the more often it does so and does not meet that deadline, the more often it is dead. It was dead on June 30, September 12 and Thanksgiving weekend. Until it cleans up its act and is prepared to take certain steps with this legislation that Hon. Members of the Official Opposition and my Party may not agree with, it will not meet the Remembrance Day weekend deadline and it will not meet the Christmas deadline.
Every once in a while, there is an exception to the rule. Most of the time, Parties in Opposition know and understand that the Government has the right to govern and it has the right to pass its legislation. In the overwhelming majority of cases of legislation, that happens. Opposition Parties will oppose, will propose and will vote against legislation, but the Government passes 95 per cent of its legislation. However, once in awhile a piece of legislation will come forward that is an exception to this rule, and this is one of those pieces of legislation.
I remind the former Minister of Transport that his predecessor tried to pilot the first grain stabilization Bill through the House. The Government ended up with egg on its face and had to withdraw the Bill. If it had not been for the Opposition Members and eventually even Members on the Government side saying that this was a dumb piece of legislation, we would have been stuck with a grain stabilization Bill that was worse than the one we finally got. The one we finally got is so bad that if one were to apply the same principle to the Unemployment Insurance Act, the person who worked full time would collect the most money. If one were to apply the same principle to the medicare Act, the person who never got sick would collect the most money. That is what we got out of the Government when it passed a Bill that it did not know anything about, and the same is true for this Bill.
Government Members got all excited about Motion No. 2 which proposes a minor amendment, and even the Chair got excited about it. Even the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) got excited about it, and I do not understand why. If the Government will not learn from previous history, it is condemned to repeat history, and that is exactly what it is doing.

October 7, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
I would refer the Chair to all of the motions listed in the first paragraph on page 2 of yesterday's preliminary ruling. I would ask the Chair to examine Motions Nos. 2 to 19 and Motions Nos. 59, 64, 66, 67, 70, 129, 134, 135 and 145. Where those motions refer to definitions and propose to do nothing more than transfer the same wording from one clause to another, I would suggest that they do not make substantive changes but are in order, unless any of those motions not only makes a transfer but changes the wording. We would like the Chair's reasons for ruling that they are substantive and we would like to have them discussed further. In the meantime, Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6-and I have not had time to look at the rest-are not substantive but only transfer identical words from Clause 34 to Clause 2, so why not have them in order?


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wish to intervene at this point to deal with two specific motions on which Madam Speaker issued a preliminary ruling on October 6 as reported at pages 27824-5 of Hansard.
I wonder what might happen if some of the arguments that have been brought forward were to prove persuasive and cause the Chair to have second thoughts about the ruling. However, as they are preliminary or tentative rulings, I shall proceed with my argument.
I was very impressed with the line of argumentation on Motions Nos. 165 and 166 made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr, Deans) this morning. I wish to reinforce his line of argument. The Speaker said that Motion No. 166 goes beyond the scope of the Bill and Motion No. 165 is contrary to the principle of the Bill. In one case I feel the argument could be built up a little more strongly than in the other, but the case put forward this morning by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain was very convincing.
I wish to speak to the tentative ruling by Madam Speaker at p. 27825 of Hansard on Motion No. 165, which she ruled as being contrary to the principle of the Bill. As was mentioned this morning, the principle of the Bill is outlined in the full title, "An Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof'. Motion No. 165 is intended to replace Clause 62 with different wording and, as it now stands, Clause 62 is aimed at amending certain other legislation. To that extent at least, changes to that clause would fall within the principle of the Bill, namely, "-to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof'.
There is another little niggling thing that is suggested to me in the ruling that it is contrary to the principle of the Bill. 1 should like to do some hypothesizing about what might happen in the future. What if Clause 62, which has to do with the Dominion coal lands and which in its current form in the post-Committee version of Bill C-155 authorizes "Her Majesty in Right of Canada" to do certain things-what if that clause were to be accepted and Her Majesty in Right of Canada were to hold, dispose of or otherwise deal with those
lands by returning them to British Columbia as Motion No. 165 suggests? In other words, at the present time we cannot deal with that motion because the notion is that it has changed that amendment substantially and therefore is contrary to the principle of the Bill. What if the Government should subsequently decide to do just exactly that very thing? Would that become ultra vires by virtue of the Speaker's ruling during the debate? Does that ruling about the principle of the Bill extend into the actions the Government may take subsequently in implementing the wording of Clause 62 as it stands that "- Her Majesty in Right of Canada may hold, dispose of or otherwise deal with the land selected-"?
Suppose the Government did decide in its wisdom-and I would consider it wisdom-to cause this land to revert to British Columbia, would that be contrary to the principle of the Bill? If not, I suggest that the ruling itself is incorrect in that it cannot be contrary to the principle of the Bill if the Government action were not contrary to the principle of the Bill. Therefore, I feel that Motion No. 165 is not contrary to the principle of the Bill and ought to remain there as the basis for discussion and subsequent decision by the House on whether it is acceptable in place of Clause 62 as it stands.
My other comments deal with Motion No. 166. In this case, at p. 27824 of Hansard the Speaker ruled tentatively that the motion goes beyond the scope of the Bill. I think the scope of the Bill has to be considered in the light of what the Bill sets out to do. Again, I revert to the long title. This Bill sets out to do three things. It is "an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping ahd handling of western grain-", those three things. In addition, it is "-to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof'.
Motion No. 166 removes a certain preamble to Clause 62 and would cause the Canadian Pacific Railway to be instructed to "-repay all grants received by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company as a result of the Crow's Nest Pass Act or any agreement made pursuant to any such Act plus interest". As I indicated earlier, the case to be made for the maintenance of Motion No. 166 is not, even in my mind, quite as strong as the case to be made for the maintenance of Motion No. 165. In any event, I think if it were to be left in, it would permit those from British Columbia who have very strong feelings about that particular transfer of land and the resources therein, thereunder and thereabout, to debate strenuously for the reversion of the land to the Crown in Right of British Columbia.
Therefore, I urge the Chair to reconsider the rulings as given on October 6 at pages 27824 and 27825 of Hansard in these two lights, that Motion No. 165, by the submission of a number of Hon. Members, is not contrary to the principle of the Bill and that Motion No. 166 does not go beyond the scope of the Bill as elaborated on by myself and other Hon. Members. I do commend the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on the excellent manner in which he built that case. I do rely on the Chair, and the table officers, to take
October 7, 1983

these considerations into account in making the firm ruling so that there will be an opportunity to debate this particular matter of the Crow's Nest Act and the amendments thereto.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order to respond to the preliminary ruling of the Chair this morning. I would like to confine my remarks to the grouping of Motions Nos. 2 to 19. It seems to me that it is very difficult to deal in an over-all manner with so many motions. That is basically why I rise. The reasons for ruling motions out of order are fairly straightforward. They usually fall into three or four categories. A motion is usually ruled out of scope, or is proposing a substantive change in the intent of the Bill. Also, motions are occasionally ruled out of order because of financial restraints. They cannot interfere with the Royal prerogative of deciding what sort of expenditures may be made. Another reason which is often put forward is that the motion is contrary to the purpose of the Bill.
1 am having great difficulty with the announcement presented to us by the Speaker yesterday, as it applied to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Even though the Chair in its ruling did indicate that some of these motions involved a simple transfer of definitions from Part II and Part III of the Bill forward to Clause 2 which offers definitions for the entire Bill, I fail to understand from the ruling of the Chair how this was out of order. I would like some further clarification on those particular motions because, I remind the Chair, those motions used exactly the same wording that is in the Bill. They do not change the wording. The fact that the spot in the Bill has changed does not change the meaning. It simply makes for a neater Bill. The attempt is to put all of the definitions in the initial part. Clause 2 begins "In this Act," and goes on to state the definitions and what those definitions shall mean. Part II and Part III begin, in each case, "In this Part", and go on to outline those definitions.
I would remind the Chair, therefore, that Motion No. 2 is simply a transfer from Clause 34 forward to Clause 2. Motion No. 3 has again exactly the same wording, being transferred from Clause 54 forward to the appropriate place in Clause 2. Motion No. 4 again has the same wording, being transferred from Clause 54 to Clause 2. Therefore, we have a clear definitions Clause in the Bill. Similarly, Motion No. 5 has the same wording one finds in Clause 34. The proposal is to transfer it under the definitions clause. As well, Motion No. 6 has the same wording as appears in the Bill in Clause 54. The same is true of Motion No. 7 which has the same wording one would find in Clause 54. So there is no change in the intent of the Bill. There is no change to the financial requirements and to the scope of the Bill. Nor, would I argue, is it contrary to the purpose and intent of the Bill. I fail to see, therefore, why those particular motions have been ruled out of order, given the reasons stated in the preliminary ruling which was presented to this House yesterday.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I would like to deal with the preliminary rulings made by the Chair relative to the group of
Western Grain Transportation Act
Motions Nos. 20 to 23, 28, 36, 41, 54, 57, 80, 81, 85, 89 and 166 going beyond the scope of the Bill. Considering that we have nothing at all in the title of the Bill which deals with the Dominion coal lands, I can accept, perhaps, that Motion No.
20 is not within the scope of the Bill. However, the portion of the Bill dealing with Dominion coal lands has been accepted. Therefore, it is quite obviously within the scope of the Bill. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kootenay-East Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) will deal with this subject more thoroughly, but I will say that Motion No. 20 should be recognized as well within the scope of the Bill since this Bill, although it does not say so in the title or in the preamble, does take into consideration those Dominion coal lands.
Motions Nos. 21 and 22 also are amendments dealing with the amount of money which is going to be paid to the railways.
It seems quite logical to me, Mr. Speaker, that there should be some give and take in this matter. Is this Bill intended only to decide how much money is going to be given to the CPR or to the CNR, and it will not impose any requirements on those corporations in return? We require service in return. If they do not fulfil that service, we should put some penalties on them. Motion No. 22 really establishes penalties which should be levied against Canadian Pacific Railway if it accepts certain funds without providing the service which is needed.
Motion No. 28, Mr. Speaker, is also in that group. Again, Madam Speaker suggested that the motion was out of the scope of the Bill. I ask that you review that because all it is really doing is establishing the membership of certain groups which have a great deal to do with the Bill. Therefore, it would seem to me that adding or deleting members of that group would be quite within the scope of the Bill.
I think Madam Speaker's definition of "scope" takes in a lot of territory. If the mention of the coal lands, for example, is acceptable and we pass that as part of the Bill, then there is no reason why we cannot amend that part of the Bill which deals with the coal lands in Clause 20.
I also want to spend a couple of minutes on the second grouping, namely Motions Nos. 2 to 19 inclusive, including Motions Nos. 59, 64, 66, and so on. All of these amendments are housekeeping motions to make the Bill more clear as far as the public is concerned. Being a layman and having to refer to these kinds of Acts of Parliament quite often during my life, I always found it valuable to know exactly where the definitions were so that I did not have to spend a lot of time going to other parts of the Bill to find out what the particular definitions were.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before I recognize the next speaker on a point of order, the House has given a considerable amount of time to examining the Speaker's tentative rulings. We do not have rules which specify how much time can be used by an Hon. Member on a point of order. Yet at the same time there is a responsibility on the part of the Chair to attempt to assist in bringing matters forward. I gave a great length of time particularly to the Hon. Member for

October 7, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), the spokesman for the NDP on matters of transport, but I urge Hon. Members to determine whether it is in fact their intention to continue on points of order. If so, I think the time has come when the Chair should indicate that Hon. Members could be asked to be somewhat briefer. At least we might proceed that far to brevity.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. I think it is important that I get on the record my concerns regarding the preliminary recommendations made by Madam Speaker. I want to deal specifically with Motion No. 20 and Clause 62 of the Bill regarding the coal lands. They are situated in my riding of Kootenay East-Revelstoke, 50,000 acres of them.
Clause 62 of the original Bill reads:
Notwithstanding the Crow's Nest Pass Act and any agreement-
This is the part I take exception to:
any agreement made pursuant thereto, the Government of Canada may hold, dispose of or otherwise deal with the lands it selected under Paragraph 1 (i.) of that Act... and on any conditions it thinks fit.
The Provinces have the right to be able to develop-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. I have to indicate to the Hon. Member that what is happening now is precisely the problem to which I was attempting to refer a few moments ago. The Chair has respected the right of all Hon. Members to rise on points of order throughout the entire afternoon. In some cases, Members have used a considerable part of their right to make a point of order to address themselves, in some degree or other, to the substance of the Bill. I am now asking Hon. Members if it would be appropriate and if the mood of the House is such that the Chair ought to suggest that points of order ought to be relevant to the procedures of the House. That is the issue in front of the Hon. Member who now has the floor.
This is not an opportunity to discuss the merits of the Bill. I think it is in order at this time to point out that points of order ought to be restricted to matters pertaining to the order of debate, the Standing Orders and the rulings of the Speaker.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I will go directly to that point of order. I was trying to build up to it.
When the committee was travelling across the country it heard a submission from the Province of British Columbia. I think it is important that this amendment be able to stand, and I just want to outline very briefly the concerns of the Province of British Columbia as to why the amendment should stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have to indicate to the Hon. Member that the merits of a political issue, if I may refer to it that way, or the merits of debate concerning a particular Bill, are not essentially the same thing as points of order. It makes no difference whether the Hon. Member's argument is the most justified political argument on the face of the earth; it stands as political argument. What the House is now involved in is points of order on the Speaker's ruling. This is not the
time or place to make arguments as to the substance of the Bill.
I know I am becoming difficult in one sense because the Chair has recognized many other Hon. Members throughout the day. However, I think it has reached the point where Hon. Members should at least consider the request of the Chair to make sure that the debate on points of order is restricted to the technicalities of points of order, not the substance of the Bill.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, you are almost entirely right but Members should not only consider the position of the Chair, they should follow the position of the Chair. That is why we have a Chair. When Members are discussing presentations or representations made before the committee rather than discussing the procedural acceptability of these amendments, they are clearly out of order.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, the problem I am having is the title of the Bill. It says:
An Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.
Motion No. 20 has been turned down by the Speaker on a preliminary basis. It is imperative to me as a Member of Parliament to discuss this legislation or this amendment in the House. This Bill will call upon me as a Member of Parliament to vote for $450 billion worth of coal reserves to be turned over to the federal Government. If I want to vote against that, I have to vote against some very important improvements to rail transportation in my area which every one of us feels must be done.
The title of the Bill has caused the problem. I say to you with all sincerity that I think it is an unjust act not even to consider that amendment which deals with coal, which has nothing to do with the transportation of grain or-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) is rising on an intervening point of order.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, obviously, not only does the Hon. Member misunderstand the point of procedure but he also misunderstands the Bill. The Bill does not turn the coal lands in British Columbia over to the federal Government. The federal Government already owns those coal lands. All the Bill does is to lift the freeze in price, and he is arguing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. I am having as much problem with that intervention as the one preceding it. The difficulty for the Chair is that over a period of time it appears appropriate to accept interventions by Hon. Members which are known and called by those Hon. Members as points of order, because it gives the House an opportunity to review the ruling by Madam Speaker and to determine whether or not there are certain points of parliamentary procedure which need to be addressed.
October 7, 1983

At a certain point, it is also the responsibility of the Chair to summarize in one's mind what is taking place in the House. I want to assure the Hon. Member that I regret that it is he, in fact, who happens to be subject to my intervention at this point, but I would have had to do it at some point or other. It is clear that during the course of the afternoon there has been an increasing tendency to use points of order to, in fact, cause debate. The Chair cannot go on all day and all week, or for whatever length of time, accepting a point of order which is not under a Standing Order as a point of order but which is in fact debate on the substance of the Bill.
1 do most sincerely ask the Hon. Member to understand that it is not his case in particular that causes the Chair to come to this point, but the day is wearing on and I think the Chair must alert Hon. Members that there must be a distinction between debate on the substance of the Bill and debate on points of order.
Therefore, I ask for Hon. Members' kindness and consideration, if I may put it that way, but I will now ask Hon. Members first to be brief and, second, to ensure that their remarks are related to points of order. If an Hon. Member wants very seriously to make a point of order, I would want to ensure that he has that right. If he begins to quote Beauchesne at the beginning of his remarks, I will listen longer and more carefully. Without that, I will start cutting off people. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I have not tried to use up some extra time, however. I have been trying to make one specific point with regard to Motion No. 20.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Hasn't it been made before?


Sidney James Parker: I feel that there has been a preliminary decision made on this matter. It is important that my views be heard as to why I feel that this particular motion should be heard.


John Leslie Evans: Procedurally.


Sidney James Parker: I have not taken up additional time of the House. I will speak on this one motion and then I will sit down.
I would like to be heard for another minute, if at all possible. We have been afforded some leniency.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: One minute.


Sidney James Parker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is imperative that Motion No. 20 be given full consideration. It has nothing to do with the transportation of our grain. It is a consequential issue. It is one that we have asked to be separated from the Bill.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You've said that 15 times.


Sidney James Parker: Not only do I not want to support it being turned over to the federal Government, but the Province of British Columbia also feels it is the rightful owner and should not be included in this part of the Bill.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You've said that 15 times, to my knowledge. There must be a limit somewhere.
Western Grain Transportation Act Mr. Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Regina West has already spoken this afternoon on a point of order. Is it a fresh point of order?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On the preliminary ruling of the Chair regarding Motion No. 20, the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) and I had some discussion on this matter in the committee. However, I want to ask the Chair to reconsider your preliminary ruling on Motion No. 20 on grounds that, according to the Chair, it goes beyond the scope of the Bill.
Since the intent of the legislation is to open up those lands as to the price, and the lands are under the jurisdiction of the Dominion Government according to the Crow's Nest Pass Act,
I want to submit that since the Dominion Government has done nothing with those lands since 1897, has only held them in trust, therefore-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -it is not beyond the Bill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please, I think that as an exercise in parliamentary debate, from this point on the Chair ought to indicate that Hon. Members should proceed to give the Chair a capsuled understanding, within the first 30 seconds, of what the point of order is. I must make a distinction between debate on the substance of the Bill or any of the amendments and debate or comments that are related to a point of order. Otherwise, the House could continue for six months on what are called points of order. The reason Hon. Members place me and other people in the Chair is to ensure that the Standing Orders are enforced. I will listen for 30 seconds to the Hon. Member for Regina West.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my 30 seconds were on the preliminary ruling of Madam Speaker, about the motion going beyond the scope of the Bill. I was trying to ask the Chair to reconsider that in fact it does not go beyond the scope of the Bill for the Bill to state the lands should be returned to the Province of British Columbia. I say that it does not go beyond the scope of the Bill because the lands have only been held in trust, formerly held by the Province of British Columbia. There is no impingement on the royal Recommendation. There is no impingement on the intent of the Bill to deal with the handling, transportation and shipping of grain.
I defy anyone to show that returning Dominion coal lands to the original providers, namely, the Province of British Columbia, goes beyond the handling, shipping and transportation of grain.
It is not a substantive amendment. I hope the Chair will take that into consideration.
Now I would like to refer to Motion No. 16.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Since the Hon. Member, himself specified that he was rising on a point of order on

October 7, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Motion No. 20, the Chair will recognize another Hon. Member who had sought the floor. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone).


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, I was just rising in an attempt to try to be helpful to you. Since I noted that you were having some difficulty with points of order raised by Members of the New Democratic Party, might I commend to your attention how the Speaker in the legislature in British Columbia handles that Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Regina West.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, on a similar point of order, I am not as heavy as the fellow in British Columbia, so I suppose I would be easier to remove, but I know Your Honour would not want to be bereft of my company.
I do not think I need to remind the Chair that the Chair invited the House to comment on three efficient sets of documents on which the Chair made preliminary rulings and, in the third document, reasons for unacceptability, on a total of 174 amendments. In all reasonableness, how are Hon. Members of the House, in the matter of a day or two, to go over every individual amendment, to check it with the Speaker's preliminary ruling, to compare it with-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -what went on in the committee, to compare it to the original Bill, the Bill as it was reported back? I defy anyone to be able to deal with that in that amount of time. We have had an open invitation from the Chair, quite properly I submit, for Hon. Members to rise on a point of order to put forth arguments as to why they think a motion is acceptable and in order or why it is not acceptable or in order, and that is a proper decision of the Chair. I want to tell Your Honour that I have points of order to raise with regard to a number of other amendments, as to their acceptability, their admissibility, and so do my colleagues. Since these coal lands are all located in the riding of my colleague, Your Honour can understand and appreciate that he may stray for a moment or two from the point of order, but I am sure Your Honour can understand it. You would, too, if those lands were in your riding. Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member for Regina West has done a very considerable favour to the House. He and I have now had an exchange of views. I understand he and other Members of his Party have a number of points of order to raise. At the same time he has indicated that he wants to keep his points of order brief, to the point, and within the procedural understanding of the House of Commons. I think that is a perfect understanding. Hopefully, the Hon. Member will proceed and perhaps allow other Hon. Members to have the floor in as short a time period as possible so they, too, will have their rights.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) for a moment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to appear to be monopolizing the floor. If other Members wish to speak, I will gladly give way to them on points of order on any of the motions which the Chair has some doubts about.
On Motion No. 16 the Chair has a preliminary ruling that says Motions Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 134 give the Chair similar problems. It appears to the Chair to be a substantive amendment to the interpretation clause and beyond the scope of the Bill. I want to argue in the case of Motion No. 16, the effect of which is to retain the statutory grain rate for the producers. It does not violate the long title. It does not call upon larger government expenditures. The funds provided for in the legislation, $651 million, will still be paid out. It in no way affects the Royal Recommendation. Now to the scope of the Bill. The Bill outlines a scale of rates in Schedule II, what is called the base rate scale. That Bill is the statutory grain rate as it relates to mileage. Motion No. 16 does nothing more than maintain the base rate scale outlined in Schedule II of the Bill. How in the devil does that go beyond the scope of the Bill? All it does is to maintain what is provided in the Bill, namely the base rate scale in Schedule II. I will not presume upon the patience of the Chair and read the whole darn thing, much as I would like to.
The maximum shipper share of the rate of cost change means zero, which is what my Motion No. 16 is. All it does is to maintain Schedule II which is in the Bill. How the dickens does that go beyond the scope of the Bill? Please, Mr. Speaker, will you and your officials spend this weekend coming up with an answer to that? I would appreciate it. On all sides of the House as well as across the country the pros and cons of maintaining the statutory grain rate for the grain producers are well known. The Bill outlines the statutory grain rate in Schedule II. Therefore, I submit to the Chair that Motion No. 16 does not go beyond the scope of the Bill.
Let us look at Motion No. 15.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I think it is only fair, and the Hon. Member for Regina West is known for his views of fairness, that other Hon. Members who might want to speak to amendments in terms of points of order, be given that opportunity. The Chair will recognize other Hon. Members. Of course, I will return to the Hon. Member for Regina West on the next amendment. As I do not see another Hon. Member rising, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Regina West on Motion No. 17, I believe?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to make the same submission as it relates to Motion No. 17. Pardon me, Motion No. 19 and Motion No. 70 appear beyond the scope of the Bill and in effect seek to destroy the Bill. Motion No. 19 reads:
-"tariff' means the tariff of rates and conditions of carriage for the movement of grain that were in effect on the sixteenth day of June, 1983.
October 7, 1983

The only reason June 16 is in the motion is that that was the day we drafted the amendment. It could just as well be October 1 or whatever. This does nothing more than maintain what is in the Bill, Schedule II, namely the base rate scale. Surely that is not beyond the scope of the Bill. Surely it is worthy of consideration by the House and of a political decision being taken by a vote in the House of Commons.
Motion No. 70 is in the same category. It reads:
-"tariff' means the tariffs of rates and conditions of carriage for the movmeent of grain in effect on the sixteenth day of June, 1983.
That is an amendment to Clause 34. The other one is an amendment to Clause 2.
Motion No. 70 would be consequential to Motion No. 19. But the argument still applies in both cases that this does nothing more than maintain a tariff that is already in Schedule II of the Bill. Surely you will want to spend the long weekend considering that, Mr. Speaker.


Arnold John Malone: It would take a long weekend to comprehend it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let us go to Motions Nos. 22 and 23, which the Chair also in a preliminary way feels are beyond the scope of the Bill. We do not have to argue whether or not they go beyond the Royal Recommendation. Obviously the Chair does not feel they do. Therefore, it is the scope of the Bill.
The Bill is amending the Crow's Nest Pass Act of 1897 and all the agreements pursuant thereto. Part of the Crow's Nest Pass Act and all agreements pursuant thereto relate to the things provided to by way of grants, by way of lands or mineral rights and cash to Canadian Pacific Railway. Since the Bill purports to amend the Crow's Nest Pass Act of 1897
Western Grain Transportation Act and all agreements pursuant thereto, surely it is not beyond the scope of the Bill to place in it any or all of the various conditions of the Crow's Nest Pass Act of 1897 and any agreements pursuant thereto.
If you are going to amend an Act then anything that is in that Act is not beyond the scope of this Bill because this Bill says we are amending that Act. I want to submit to the Chair that what we request in Motions Nos. 22 and 23 is nothing more than a further amendment to the Crow's Nest Pass Act of 1897 and agreements pursuant thereto and does not go beyond the scope of the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. First I should begin by indicating that the Hon. Member for Regina West has wished upon me on Thanksgiving weekend an enormous amount of work. It has been brought to my attention that I have a habit on Friday afternoon of wishing Hon. Members a pleasant weekend. I would want to do that more than ever because it is Thanksgiving weekend, except of course with respect to the Hon. Member for Regina West. To him I extend not only my best wishes for Thanksgiving weekend but I would suggest a very extensive study of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, in particular Standing Order 79(10). He will find therein that it is the responsibility of the Chair to encourage Hon. Members to bring their points of order in a brief and very direct manner to the attention of the House.
With that, the House stands adjourned until Tuesday morning at eleven o'clock. Have a good weekend.
At 5.02 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, October 11, 1983