Adjournment Motion Proposed Under Standing Order 26 / Application Not Accepted

Review of a statutory body

Debates pp. 9467-8

Background

Mr. Lewis (York South) sought leave to move the adjournment of the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 26, in order to discuss "the indefensible application by Bell Canada Limited for a substantial rate increase in a year of record profits [and] to examine the purposes of the requested rate increase and, generally, to seek more effective ways of preventing Bell Telephone from abusing its monopoly position to exploit its customers".

Issue

Does the application meet the requirements of Standing Order 26?

Decision

No. The application is not accepted.

Reasons given by the Speaker

"Parliament, by virtue of the Railway Act, has delegated its authority to the Canadian Transport Commission and has established machinery and procedures for the purpose of dealing with applications for rate increases by the Bell Telephone Company." The request for an emergency debate "is asking for a review or a reconsideration of the statutory powers of the Transport Commission". While such an examination might be desirable, a debate under Standing Order 26 is not an appropriate or effective method for such a review.

References

Debates, June 22, 1970, p. 8422.