I do not think I need to hear from the hon. government House leader in this case. I am sure all hon. members appreciate the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast's appreciation for the difficulties faced by the chief government whip in communications with her colleagues, because of course he has had experience as a whip himself and he knows how difficult that can be. Unfortunately, the Speaker has not had that experience but perhaps we can clarify the matter.
The hon. member seems to suggest that there is some confusion in the wording of the motion, and that somehow it is suggesting that if the motion were not concurred in, VIA Rail would lose more money than has been suggested in the report from the transport committee that was tabled last week.
I point out to the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast that on at least two previous occasions, June 22, 1973 and December 10, 1979, motions similar to the one that is now before the House were proposed by the then president of the Treasury Board. Those votes were apparently concurred in by the House subsequently when estimates were restored.
Accordingly, while I am sure the chief government whip appreciates very much the helpful suggestions from the hon. member, the practice that has been adopted in this case appears to conform exactly with previous practice in the House. I refer him to the Notice Paper for June 26, 1973, where there was a similar motion to restore a vote to its full amount, and a similar one on Friday, December 14, 1979, where there were a number of motions purporting to do exactly the same thing, where the wording is almost identical to the one before the House.
Accordingly, I find the point of order is not well taken. However, as I say, I am sure the advice he has offered is very much appreciated by the chief government whip. I know the government House leader, as a former whip, would appreciate it had he been in her position.