1986-04-09

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter from a Canadian taxpayer who in 1984 filed a correct income tax return. Three months later, Revenue Canada corrected his return and sent him a refund of $142. Six months later, Revenue Canada corrected its own mistake and asked him to pay back the $142, plus $9.50 in interest.
This taxpayer now has the following question: Why should he pay $9.50 interest, when it was Revenue Canada's mistake?
If we consider that 43 per cent of the questions Revenue Canada receives are answered incorrectly, I wonder how many people find themselves in similar situations, Mr. Speaker. Could Revenue Canada decide once and for all to train its staff to give the right answers?


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, the Nielsen task force wants to phase out farmers by phasing out branch line rehabilitation and guarantees, allowing variable freight rates, make transportation payments to farmers instead of railways, and privatize the Farm Credit Corporation, all of which are opposed by the great majority of western farmers.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised he would eliminate taxes on farm fuels. He has broken that promise.
The Conservative Premier of Saskatchewan comes to Ottawa, ostensibly to fight for our farmers, on the same day the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board, who believes that free enterprise and market forces should be the centrepiece of
farm policy, announces a 19 per cent reduction in initial grain prices. What did we get from Premier Devine in all this while here in Ottawa? Not one word. His indecisive and spineless conduct is inexcusable.
Again, western Conservatives and a western Conservative Premier have betrayed western farmers. To the Minister and Mr. Devine, 1 say, to quote Cromwell:
You have sat there too long for any good you have been doing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In the name of God, go!


ROAD SAFETY
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise today in praise of the speedy, intelligent, and competent action of each and every member of the rescue team that helped to save lives in last Sunday's terrible accident on the Queen Elizabeth Way in my riding of Mississauga North. A pleasant outing to the Metro-Toronto Zoo for a group of visitors from Buffalo turned into a nightmare when the group's bus went out of control and smashed into a chain-link fence on the highway. The top rail of the fence was driven through the front window and the entire length of the 66-passenger bus, impaling two men and injuring many others.
The efficient and co-ordinated effort of Mississauga firefighters, paramedics, policemen, ambulance staff, dispatchers and hospital staff helped to prevent loss of life. The rescue team calmly worked to administer oxygen and intravenous medication while hacksawing through the pipe that impaled the last casualty extricated from the wreck. At the same time the rescue crew treated the many other casualties of the accident. The courageous and intelligent actions of this fine rescue crew from Mississauga should be commended.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.

April 9, 1986



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in light of negative comments which appeared recently in The Globe and Mail and other media concerning the plight of Cominco Limited's smelting operations in British Columbia and similarly the plight of the City of Trail, I want to assure the House and my constituents that the negotiations between Cominco and the Province of B.C. regarding Cominco's proposal to build a new lead smelter at Trail are progressing well.
I am keeping myself well informed on the progress of those negotiations, as are the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), and the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton). We are satisfied with the progress. We fully expect that an announcement on the positive outcome of those discussions is forthcoming and will be made before the end of this month.



SITUATION IN WESTERN CANADA

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, many western Canadians must be recalling, with irony at best and cynicism at worst, the now transparently empty rhetoric spoken by members of the Conservative Party about western Canada during their many years in opposition.
With yesterday's announcement that farmers will be getting less for their grain than at any time since the Great Depression, with the international market-place playing havoc in the energy sector, and with the unrealistic cost-recovery deadlines imposed on the northern transcontinental route, the Conservatives are revealing by their approach to these issues that their real loyalty is not to western Canada but to some hidebound, stupid, and destructive ideological fixation on letting the so-called market-place determine the fate of western Canada while western Canadians dangle in the foul free-enterprise wind. Many western Canadians have rejected this view over the years. They have voted NDP. Many more will do so in the future in order to have a voice that can be counted on not to remain silent like the voice of the Tories they elected in 1984.

*
* *
*
* *



IMMIGRATION


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, many constituents have expressed concern which I share about reports that the Government is considering imposing a visa requirement on visitors from Portugal in order to curtail the increasing number of refugee applicants from that country. This is no way to deal with the problem which lies not in Portugal but with our refugee determination process. Out of the backlog of 20,000 refugee applications, only 1,000 are from Portuguese.
The majority of Portuguese Canadians living in Toronto are originally from the Azores, nine islands a two-hour flight away from our visa office in Lisbon.
Instead of punishing Canadians and their families overseas by putting them to the uncertainty and expense of fulfilling a visa requirement, why does the Government not take some action on the real problems: the weaknesses in the refugee determination system, and the so-called immigration consultants who exploit those weaknesses?



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, 69 years ago today Canadians achieved the unachievable. Sixty-nine years ago today at zero hour the barren earth erupted humanity. From dug-out, shell hole, and trenches, men sprang forward and advanced toward the Ridge. It was Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific that was on parade.
Brigadier General Ross said that he thought then that in those few minutes he witnessed the birth of a nation. Only a few of the 100,000 Canadians who advanced on Vimy Ridge that day are still alive. They are the final survivors of an army that did what the British and French before them had failed to do.
Today Vimy Ridge in northwestern France still stands as the most important battle in Canada's history. This is why each year the Government of Canada holds a ceremony at the majestic Vimy Memorial, on land deeded to Canada by France in honour of the 60,000 Canadians killed. We will remember them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.
April 9, 1986



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuii-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, last night on the program Le Point, we saw how lax security is at Mirabel and other airports-and in Toronto two months ago-and that it is far too easy to smuggle arms and dynamite aboard aircraft.
At a time when an unprecedented wave of violence is threatening airports in Europe and the Middle East, and after tragedies such as the Air India crash and the TWA incident last week, some very serious questions arise as to the effectiveness of security measures here in Canada.
At Mirabel, the regular security screening employees are on strike. They earn a miserable $4.00 per hour.
Since there are no anti-scab laws here in Canada, the replacements get only superficial instruction on security standards, which represents a threat to the lives of passengers.
Mr. Speaker, the regular employees should be paid a decent wage, and that is why I insist that the present contract be declared null and void and that the new offer reflect provincial labour standards, so that the qualified employees who are on strike can get on with their essential duties-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. The 60 seconds are up. The Hon. Member for London-East (Mr. Jepson).



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Montreal the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) announced the approval of 17 apprenticeship projects which will employ 339 young Canadians this year. This is only the beginning, the tip of the iceberg. Over the course of the year over 400 such programs will be under way across Canada, with about 12,000 participants.
These projects are part of the Canadian Jobs Strategy announced by the Minister as a means of giving our youth practical experience and real job skills. Over the course of the year $125 million will be invested in these projects. In addition, another 8,000 young people are participating in the Job Entry Program.
In total, $900 million will be invested in the youth of Canada as part of the commitment of the PC Government to Canada's future. Tens of thousands of young Canadians will benefit from projects which allow them to gain experience, develop needed skills, and ultimately get a real job.
This is what leadership is all about. Much still has to be done, but our record is some cause for encouragement when compared with that of the previous administration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: This morning, Mr. Speaker, we were visited by Mirabel and Dorval security agents and they gave us petitions. We have here a common front of Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic Members who are urging the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to intervene - he did tell the union representatives that he would - and give them a favourable answer today. In addition, as requested by the Conservative Member, the contract ought to be cancelled, those people should be given decent wages, and the security of Dorval and Mirabel passengers should be tightened up.



JOB ENTRY PROGRAM


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: In Montreal yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) announced that 17 job entry projects have been launched and will enable 339 young Quebecers to complete training sessions in various fields of activity. The purpose of the program is to help them gain experience and make it easier for them to join the labour force. Mr. Speaker, what a change from the slipshod programs of the Liberal Party!
These projects stem from our employment strategy policy aimed at promoting job opportunities for as many young people as possible.
This year, Mr. Speaker, $900 million will be set aside to implement that policy, including $125 million for job entry projects.
Between now and year's end, tens of thousands of young Canadians will benefit from a wide range of programs designed to give them lasting work anywhere in Canada.
Unlike our predecessors who were quite satisfied with window-dressing schemes, we have set up real youth programs.

April 9, 1986
Oral Questions



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a recent task force report from Ontario highlighted a growing concern in rural Canada-the increase in the suicide rate. Suicide is now the fastest growing cause of death in farm families. Farming has always been a dangerous occupation and ranks up there with forestry workers and miners for accident rates, but now the suicide rate among farmers has surpassed even the accident rate.
The impact is most profound on farm families, from the youngest child with failing grades and emotional problems, to wives who fret in isolation at the prospect of a splintered family, to husbands who take to the bottle. The absence of unemployment insurance benefits, and severely restricted access to welfare for farmers trapped in the long downward spiral to failure, have not helped much. The much vaunted social net barely exists for Canada's farmers. The Government promised much more to Canada's farmers. Surely our farmers rate more than despair and economic ruin.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SASKATCHEWAN MINISTER OF PARKS AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES

Mr. Speaker:: May I draw to the attention of Members the presence today in our gallery of the Hon. Colin Maxwell, Minister of Parks and Renewable Resources for Saskatchewan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I gave an undertaking to the downtown eastside residents of Vancouver that I would put this question to the Prime Minister on his return to the House.
Later this month the Prime Minister is going to Vancouver to participate in the opening of Expo 86, which will be a triumph for Canada and a great credit to the Province of British Columbia and to our country. As the Prime Minister knows, I am sure, there has been a black eye recently with the
eviction of hundreds of elderly citizens who have been thrown out by residential hotels so that they can take advantage of the short-term profit from Expo.
Would the Prime Minister telephone the Premier of British Columbia and suggest to him, as has the Vancouver City Council, that a moratorium be imposed during Expo to prevent any further evictions, or any excessive rent increases, so that we can forestall this continued injury to our weaker and older citizens?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, while agreeing with the Right Hon. gentleman's observations about Expo 86 and the fact that it will be a success, I certainly agree that it has been somewhat tarnished by the reference to the issue to which the Right Hon. gentleman has referred.
I have spoken to the Premier personally about this matter and I have written to the Ministers responsible, indicating our concern in the hope that they will take corresponding reciprocal action.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport was in Vancouver during Centennial Weekend in his capacity as Minister responsible for Expo. He knows the seriousness of the problem but, I believe, with the greatest respect to him, only the Prime Minister can impress the gravity of the situation upon the Premier of British Columbia.


HOUSING
John Napier Turner: My
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Labour who is responsible for housing. He knows that in Vancouver we have a crisis in social housing. He knows that all funds have been frozen this year, except for a release yesterday on co-operative housing.
Would the Minister, when he travels to Vancouver on April 24 to meet his provincial counterpart, insist in any agreement with the Province of British Columbia that priority be given to co-operative, non-profit, social housing, and that a presence remain in federal hands in the signing of that particular agreement?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the interest which the Hon. Member has in cooperative housing. I should draw to his attention, however, that co-operative housing is the only housing the federal Government will be putting forward that will not be fully targeted.
The Right Hon. Member has expressed concern about low-income earners in Canada. Every dollar, with the exception of the co-op housing program, will be 100 per cent targeted to those Canadian families who are in need.
April 9, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR UNILATERAL FEDERAL ACTION
John Napier Turner: Despite their posturing and that rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, social housing remains an acute problem in Vancouver and in parts of British Columbia. If the Minister of Labour is unable, on his visit to Vancouver, to achieve an agreement with the provincial Government, will he insist on unilateral federal delivery of social housing programs to alleviate the acute shortage and the hardship in Vancouver?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the initiative taken by the Government has been to increase the number of social housing units in Canada over the previous administration's policies.


Ms. Mitchell:: You turned down Expo housing.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: We will be doubling the number of housing units available to Canadians in need over what the previous program delivered.
In 1985, Mr. Speaker, we increased the numbers in British Columbia by 23 per cent, and this year, if we can come to an agreement, we will increase the number of social housing units by 60 per cent over what was accomplished by the previous administration.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I want to ask him about the devastating blow to the Canadian farm economy as a result of the announcement yesterday of the very low initial prices for wheat and barley. In effect Canadian farmers are being asked to accept 1978 prices when they have to face 1986 costs.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to announce a major deficiency payment to help farmers survive, as recommended by the advisory council of the Wheat Board? Is he also prepared to organize a major meeting of all the grain exporting nations so that we can come up with a plan which will not make Canadian farmers the casualties of an agricultural trade war?
Oral Questions


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When's the last time you shovelled any, Ray?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the severe financial problems facing grain producers, not only in western Canada but throughout the country. The Government has been very much aware of the needs of agriculture. Since the formation of this Government we have taken some 100 initiatives which have resulted in the spending of several billions of dollars. Last year the Government supported the western grain producer to the tune of almost $1.5 billion.
With regard to the announcement made yesterday, the normal procedure would have been to follow the U.S. loan rate which went down 27 per cent. We showed support for the prairie grain economy and the other grain producers in the country by lowering prices 19 per cent. That is certainly not good news, but it shows the concern which the Government has for agriculture.


EFFECT OF PROPOSED UNITED STATES FARM BILL
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is a strange form of logic to suggest that yesterday's announcement is going to help western farmers. It is going to hurt them desperately.
In the Prime Minister's meeting with President Reagan during the summit meeting in Washington did he raise the issue of the devasting impact which the U.S. Farm Bill will have upon western farmers? Did he ask President Reagan for an agreement to hold a major meeting of the exporting nations so that we can co-operatively find an answer to a problem which is going to destroy the western grain economy if the Government does not do something about it?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, at no time did I say that yesterday's announcement would be of help to anyone in the country. It is bad news.


Mr. Orlikow:: Answer the question.


Charles James Mayer: With regard to the Hon. Member's question, the Prime Minister has raised this issue with the President of the United States. The Secretary of State has raised it with Mr. Shultz.


Lloyd Axworthy: What's the answer?


Charles James Mayer: The Minister of Agriculture has raised it, I have raised it, and the Minister of International Trade has raised it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You wouldn't know a bushel of wheat if it hit you in the face.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Look who's talking. You wouldn't know anything if it hit you in the face.


Lloyd Axworthy: What's the answer?


Charles James Mayer: We have raised it in such a way as to enable us to continue talking to the Americans to let them know our concerns. We have not gone down there and insulted them, and

April 9, 1986
Oral Questions
told them that their farm programs are unethical and unchristian, and called them pip-squeaks.


Lloyd Axworthy: What's the answer?


Charles James Mayer: We want to have on-going dialogue with them in order to attain results, rather than just going outside the country and calling people names.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who made very specific promises to western farmers. Yesterday's announcement by the Government will mean a net loss in income for prairie grain farmers of $1 billion a year. That, added to their present burden, means that their income this year will be less than zero-zilch. Given the promises the Prime Minister made in the last election, why has he abandoned the western Canadian farmer?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly aware of the fact that there is a serious problem in western Canada as it affects commodity prices. That is why the Government has worked so hard, with almost 100 initiatives since it was sworn in, to be of assistance to the agricultural sector in western Canada in particular. In fact it is widely known in western Canada that if there is a Farmers' Party in the country, it is the Progressive Conservative Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: It used to be. It's not any more.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It's the Dirty Eighties.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have introduced capital gains tax exemptions, the Agricultural Stabilization Act, the Western Grain Stabilization Act, the Western Grain Transportation Act, and advance payments for crops. We have given substantial assistance to farmers in western Canada. It is not enough, we are going to do more, and with the help of all Members of the House we will be able to do so in the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as a result of this so-called Farmers' Party, as described by the Prime Minister, 40,000 Canadian farmers are on the verge of bankruptcy. That was before yesterday's announcement, without considering the effects of that announcement.
Almost two years ago to the day in this House the Prime Minister said: "It is typical of the Government that when the interests of western Canada are involved it is always tied to
something else. No wonder western Canada won't trust them as far as they can throw them." He said that about the Liberals. Why was that any more true of the Liberals then than it is of the Conservatives today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Because, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals, with the help of their sweethearts in the NDP, crushed the western farmers. We brought them back to life.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is the difference between a socialist and a Liberal and us. We have brought in dozens upon dozens of measures designed to reward the productivity of the western farmer. The western farmer knows full well that we have been helpful and others have been less so. He knows full well that when he is looking for a friend in Ottawa, he looks to the Progressive Conservative Government.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: He may have looked to the Conservative Party in the last election but he sure will not in the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Don't bet Bob White on that.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, what is there in the Conservative Party's philosophy that could cause Government in one weekend last year to find $1 billion for the banks but this year take $1 billion out of the pockets of the prairie farmer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have put almost $3 billion into the agricultural sector since this Government was elected. We indicated that we believe this, while helpful, is not enough and we hope to do more. The Hon. Member raises the question about the distinctions between this Government and others. This Government did not give the farmers 20 per cent interest rates, and this Government did not tell the farmers to go sell their own wheat.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST FOR INTERIM PAYMENT UNDER WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Wheat Board. He said that his announcement yesterday was bad news. For most western farmers it is considered a total disaster. Since the initial wheat payment will not even cover the cost of production for many young farmers teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, is the Minister prepared to make a commitment right now to a $1 billion payment from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund?
April 9, 1986


Charles James Mayer: I will tell you what I can say, Mr. Speaker. We are in the process of doing the final calculation on the figure for an interim payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. We hope to have that in the mail and in producers' hands by May 1. We did that as a result of an amendment we introduced. We did not do what the previous Government did, make a small payment in the middle of an election for political purposes. We are making it prior to spring seeding so it will do some good for the farmers in putting their crop in the ground.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that payment is for the present crop year, not the upcoming crop year. How is it that the Government is able to find $1 billion for a bank bail-out over a Labour Day weekend but it is not able to find $1 billion for farmers?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You guys are using the same writers as the NDP.


Charles James Mayer: First, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that we did not bail out the banks. It was the depositors who had money in those banks who were the people who were looked after.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Tell that to Saskatchewan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles James Mayer: Go ahead and laugh. He should also know that yesterday we announced a couple of other things. We are freezing the maximum tariffs charged by elevator companies in terminals-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The NDP would not do it.


Charles James Mayer: You want us not to do it? Is that what the Opposition is saying? I can understand the Liberals as they do not have a farmer over there, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: As a farmer I would like to direct my question to Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. In April, 1984, the present Minister condemned the Liberal Government in a motion which he put before the House which said, "This House condemns the Government for its failure to recognize the importance of the agricultural sector". It went on to say, "... and urge the
Oral Questions
Government to resist the erosion of initial prices of western grain".


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Just a question, please.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: How can the Minister make that kind of a statement and subsequently erode the prices of western grain by his announcement yesterday?


Charles James Mayer: I said yesterday when we made the announcement that it is a very difficult situation. As a farmer from Prince Albert the Hon. Member knows that we face the same kind of problems when we go to our banks in the spring to make financing arrangements for our crop. I said we are going to make a western grain stabilization payment as large as we can and get it in producers' hands with regard to-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It's their money.


Charles James Mayer: Part of it is their money. A third of it is their money, two-thirds of it is Government money. It is up to the Government to decide when and what amount the interim payment should be. We announced yesterday that we are going to be looking very seriously in terms of what we can do on the domestic price issue. As a country Canada has taken the lead, and always has, in international wheat agreements. Canada chaired the International Wheat Council meeting that was held recently in London to look at the international wheat-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Short supplementary.


REQUEST FOR DEFICIENCY PAYMENT
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Will the Minister announce at least a $2.50 per bushel deficiency payment to save those thousands of farmers who are going to go bankrupt because of the announcement that he made yesterday?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that makes it very difficult for Canada, as well as Argentina and Australia, to deal with on the international grain market is that the three of us, as countries, export such a very large per cent of our production. That makes it very difficult for Canada to compete with the Americans and the Europeans in what a lot of us think is a ridiculous price war.
What we are trying to do is work with the other exporting nations to make sure that when they are spending money that it is not going to be spent in such a way that simply drives prices down and hurts all of our producers collectively. Canada has been taking the lead in trying to bring about those discussions.


CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES PAYMENTS TO FARMERS
John Napier Turner: would like to direct a question the Prime Minister. Why is it that under the current arrangement the Canadian farmer is going to be paid $3 a bushel while the American farmer at the

April 9, 1986
Oral Questions
same time, when you take in the deficiency payments, is going to be paid $6 a bushel, twice what the Canadian farmer is going to achieve? Will the Prime Minister undertake to repair this difference in payment in some fashion in order that we can avoid more bankruptcies and more hardship on our Canadian farmers?


Charles James Mayer: It is very simple. The American Farm Bill addresses two things. The Americans feel that they have lost a market share and they would like to get it back, and they believe that they can get it back by lowering international prices. We do not think that is going to work. The Americans are prepared to put up a massive amount of money to see if they can get back their market share. The estimates in the United States of the cost of the U.S. Farm Bill over the next five years go as high as $100 billion Canadian. We are simply saying that we do not think spending that kind of money, even if you have it, is going to get results as far as increasing prices for Canadian farmers is concerned, let alone for any other farmers around the world.


REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY FUND DISCUSSIONS
John Napier Turner: The
Canadian Government is not capable of using its so-called special relationship with the United States to get a comparable payment to Canadian farmers. Will it at least convene a meeting through the Prime Minister of the Premiers of the grain producing provinces to set up and discuss a farmer's emergency funi as soon as possible in order to meet this situation?


Charles James Mayer: This situation not only affects Canada, it affects Argentina and Australia as with well. We have all been making those kinds of representations to the Americans to try to point out the concern we have, as well as the Europeans. If you want to go back far enough and look at the cause of the major part of this grain glut and the lowering prices, we must look at the European Community. If the Right Hon. Member wants to ask his question and be consistent, he should include the Europeans in that discussion, which Canada has already done.


CANADA-UNITED STATES DISCUSSIONS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Since he has been cultivating a very close relationship with the Americans and has had several meetings with them prior to this decision, and since the American Farm Bill was a factor before the last set of meetings, can he tell us what he has achieved through his close contact with the American administration? Can he tell us what he has given away in return to the Americans for having participated in their farm program and allowing our price of grain to drop?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Europeans have increased production dramatically in that part of the world through very large subsidies. It is causing problems as far as trade is concerned in many other agricultural products besides wheat. It is causing problems in beef, dairy products, sugar-beets, and many other areas. We have raised those kinds of concerns on a larger scale. We raised those concerns almost a year ago when we saw the prospects of what the U.S. Farm Bill could eventually produce. We have been aware of this and have been raising those concerns, as have other countries around the world.
We believe the best way of being able to have an ongoing discussion with the Americans, as with everybody else, is to do it in a firm fashion, pointing out some of our major problems without at the same time being insulting with them, which was the case with the previous Government on too many occasions.


COMPETITIVENESS OF CANADIAN FARMERS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Since the Europeans are now locked in a discussion of whether the price of wheat should go up 3 per cent or 6 per cent at the farm gate, and since the Americans are expecting the equivalent of something over $6 Canadian to their farmers, what is it that the Government is proposing to do to keep Canada's farmers competitive? We cannot compete with $3 wheat against $6 and higher. What are you going to do to make certain that we remain competitive as producers, given this world situation?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, we addressed this question previously. We have the Western Grain Stabilization Act that pumped some money-


An Hon. Member:: We had it last year.


Charles James Mayer: That is right, we did have it last year, and he should know that the President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Board said last year that without federal government spending in agriculture in the West the total amount of money that farmers had would have been in a net deficit position, so at least somebody from his own province is willing to give the federal Government some credit for the spending that has been going into agriculture.


AIR SAFETY
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport, and to paraphrase the Hon. Member for Bow River, the most ineffective one Canada has ever had.
April 9, 1986

How does the Minister intend to explain to the Canadian people, after all the assurances he gave following the Air India incident, why security at Canadian airports is still so lax, as was very aptly demonstrated the other day by two CBC journalists?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the matter to which the Hon. Member has referred is being investigated. It would appear on the surface, at least, that there was a breach of security and I am certainly not going to deny that. A number of measures have been and will be implemented. To be specific with regard to the security screening, we are planning to introduce new standards for security screening personnel, and a new comprehensive training program. We plan to step up the monitoring as well. My colleague, the Solicitor General, and myself are in the process of preparing a joint memo to Cabinet which will provide for an enhancement of the security program at all Canadian airports, and that should cover the whole gambit.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the good word of the Minister is no longer enough.


REQUEST THAT SECURITY PROCEDURES BE CHANGED
André Ouellet: The Minister told us the exact same thing 10 months ago. Will he intervene now and settle the strike that is taking place in Montreal by the security agents? Will he change immediately the security procedures at all Canadian airports, not just with words but with action right away?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the issue of the strike of the security people at the airports in Montreal is being handled very capably by my colleague, the Minister of Labour. It is under mediation.
As far as the other suggestion that the Hon. Member has advanced is concerned, we are taking that into consideration. I am planning to call the executives of the airlines to Ottawa to discuss what steps might be taken, to discuss this particular issue that has arisen, and to see whether we can take immediate steps to tighten up security further at all airports.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to women's concerns about social programs, especially the Government's review of universal programs. Will the Prime Minister give Canadian women the assurance that this
Oral Questions
review will be a fully open one and that it will include improvements to universal programs, not just cutbacks?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the Hon. Member since she has referred to the reference in the Budget regarding social policy review. I know that some of my colleagues, including the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and others, have been meeting with groups which pertain to their Departments. That is just beginning.
I want to assure her that, from the perspective of women and the issues that concern them very deeply, that open review and our association and collaboration with them will continue. I appreciate the comments she made.


NATIONAL ACTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will he respond to the recommendation made by the National Action Committee that, in order to ensure the full participation of women's groups in their particular concerns about universality, there be adequate funding to allow groups to prepare detailed briefs as was done for the equality review?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot commit myself to that request on the floor of the House. It would also fall largely within the responsibility of the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. However, if there is a request, obviously it will receive our respective considerations.


FUNDING OF HUSKY HEAVY OIL UPGRADER PROJECT
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, energy and the security of supply are a major concern for all Canadians. My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I understand that there have been some very positive results from her meeting yesterday with the representatives of Husky Oil and the Governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Is the Minister prepared to tell the House the results of that meeting?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Briefly.


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, certainly we on this side of the House are proud that we are the first federal Government to put real money on the table for the Husky upgrader. At our meetings yesterday we did agree with the company and the

April 9, 1986
Oral Questions
two Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta to pick up, on a shared cost basis, the cost of completing the preconstruction engineering phase, which is about $90 million, of the upgrader. I believe it shows our commitment to security of supply at a time when energy prices are very chaotic. It shows our commitment to the industry at a time when other investment plans are on hold.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr.Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I think the Minister will agree, as some journalists proved yesterday on the program Le Point on the French CBC network, that security for passengers at Dorval and Mirabel is inadequate. Is the Minister prepared to intervene right away in the security agents' dispute, to ensure that these people are given fair treatment and also to ensure passenger security? Is he prepared to do something today?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the Hon. Member that there is a mediator in place-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Not the one you said.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I am sorry. The Hon. Member has drawn to my attention that I said mediator Doucet yesterday. It is mediator St. Hilaire who is in place. I want to inform the Hon. Member that at this time the mediator has, through his good offices, put forward a proposal from the company to the union which the union is now considering.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Jean-Claude Malépart: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The correction made to the Minister's reply clearly shows he is not well informed on the subject.
Would the Minister who just answered or the Minister of Transport be willing to meet with employee representatives who are here today, in order to settle this dispute? Is one of the two gentlemen capable of acting responsibly and meeting with these people in order to settle the dispute and thus safeguard the security of passengers at Dorval and Mirabel?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member realizes that collective bargaining takes place between two parties-the employer, and the
employees represented by the bargaining units. I suggest that the Hon. Member wants the Government to intervene in the collective bargaining process.


An Hon. Member:: What about security?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: We are here to assist both parties and we are available at any time to mediate and use the offices of Labour Canada to assist both parties in coming to a mutually agreeable understanding that can put people back to work and provide the security about which the Hon. Member is concerned.


OIL PRICES-REQUEST FOR NEGOTIATION OF FLOOR PRICE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Tommy Douglas once said that in the past, when the so-called market failed western Canadians, western Canadians did not hestitate to use other instruments like cooperatives or the power of the state to turn a dust bowl into a modern economy. If the Minister really wants to help the industry in western Canada why does she not negotiate a made-in-Canada floor price for western Canadian oil producers?


Mr. McDermid:: Nobody wants it but you.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to point out that the late Tommy Douglas was also able to participate in the private sector as a director of Husky Oil, so he certainly believed in the free market sector for the oil and gas industry.


VIEWS OF SASKATCHEWAN PREMIER
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, Premier Devine of Saskatchewan said in his nomination meeting, and later in Toronto, that he favoured a $15 U.S. floor price for oil. Did Mr. Devine put forward that view at the meeting and, if so, why did the Minister not listen?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to report to the Member and the House that we had very fruitful meetings yesterday with the three western provinces. Our discussions included eleven Ministers and one Premier and we were able to examine some of the current problems facing the oil and gas industry in some detail.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Did Devine put that question?


Pat Carney: As the Hon. Member knows, the various mechanisms available to Governments at any level have different impacts on different provinces. We are trying to work
April 9, 1986

together in a co-ordinated fashion to ensure that any approach we take is the most effective.
I can just add, Mr. Speaker


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Pat Carney: -at no time has Premier Devine or anyone else asked for a floor price for oil.


HUSKY HEAVY OIL UPGRADER PROJECT
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Recognizing that the agreement signed yesterday on the Husky upgrader should be applauded by all Members in the House, when will the final decision for the construction of the project be taken? What is the time frame, and what is the target date?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in the Alberta caucus for their strong support and their many recommendations to me both in the matter of the Husky upgrader and energy policy.
We will make the decision on the construction phase of the Husky upgrader later this fall when, hopefully, the oil pricing situation is clarified.


AIRPORTS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, Air Canada has informed the Departments of Immigration, Customs and Excise, and Transport that in order to meet existing regulations Air Canada will have to off-load, in stages, Newfoundland-bound passengers from its international flights because a security area big enough does not exist at St. John's airport to handle even the domestic travellers at peak periods.
Why did the Minister inform the President of Air Canada on March 26 that the space and facilities are available at St. John's airport when Air Canada says that they are not? Or was the Minister talking about the great outdoors?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the anticipated passenger traffic, the Minister of National Revenue has indicated that there are adequate facilities to handle that traffic. The Hon. Member is talking about planeloads of 200 to 230 passengers when, in fact, Air Canada is talking about planeloads of anywhere from 60 to 120 passengers.
Oral Questions


OBJECTIONS TO TRANSFER OF FLIGHTS FROM GANDER
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, because there is no adequate security area, over 200 passengers on a L-1011 using this service, because of fog or mechanical problems, would be held captive aboard the aircraft.
Will the Minister confirm or deny-and he'd better not deny it-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: -the existence of a policy letter dated December 17 from Customs and Immigration to the Minister's Department which lists serious objections to the transfer of flights to St. John's? Will he explain to the House how he can ignore serious objections such as this?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the Hon. Member yesterday, I did consult with my Cabinet colleagues, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Immigration, and all three Ministers responded in the affirmative that accommodation could be made. That is the letter that stands, not the letter to which the Hon. Member refers.


REQUEST FOR OIL PRICE STABILIZATION PLAN
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister will be well aware that unless some immediate action is taken, eventually the only players left in the Western Basin will be the large integrated multinational oil companies. What action has the Minister taken other than a study of the situation in order to respond to the request by the 100 Canadian independents who have asked for a price stabilization plan?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, we have already taken significant and historic action in the signing of the Western Accord with the provinces, which removed billions of dollars of taxload from the very producers about which the Hon. Member speaks. I would like to remind the House that under the Liberal program there were about 530 companies paying the PGRT. Only 70 companies are now left paying this tax. That is what we have done for the oil and gas industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister and the Government will know that unless some action is taken we will see literally thousands of jobs lost in the oil industry alone in western Canada. Last night we found out that we will be hammering

April 9, 1986
Oral Questions
the farmers a little bit longer. Where are the 59 western Tory Members who have the courage to stand up and say that what the Government is doing in terms of the wheat pricing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question. The Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault).

[ Translation]


LABOUR RELATIONS
Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question to the one I directed to the Minister of Labour yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, since Radio-Canada proved yesterday that security at Dorval and Mirabel airports is seriously lacking, can the Minister tell us whether he intends to ask for the security agency's contract cancellation and call for public tenders, making sure this time that the contract will compel bidders to abide by the provincial decree on security agents?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, 1 can inform the Hon. Member, as I have informed another Member of the House, that at the present time an offer has been put forward by the company to the union. The union is presently looking at that offer. The collective bargaining process will continue. Labour Canada and mediator St. Hilaire are there to assist. The Hon. Member referred yesterday to a provincial decree which does not have anything to do with the collective bargaining process as it impacts on federal jurisdiction.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL TALKS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Canada Petroleum Association has predicted that this year $2.2 billion less will be spent in the energy sector and that 18,000 people will lose their jobs. Why is it that after 12 hours of talks with her provincial counterparts the Government could agree only to have more talks?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's statement is entirely false. We agreed on the financing of the pre-construction engineering of the Husky upgrader, something which was merely a campaign promise in a leadership race under the
former Liberal Government. It took hours of numbers crunching to come up with that project. We spent hours discussing all the various mechanisms we can use to aid the industry.
I can also add that we reviewed the terrific progress which the industry has made since the signing of the Western Accord, with a 15 per cent increase in employment, billions of dollars in new investment, which had been put at risk?-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Get serious!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Supplementary question.


EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS ON HEAVY OIL UPGRADER PROJECT
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the money which the Government put toward the Husky upgrader was to pay for past development engineering and not future.


Jack Wendele Shields: That's a lie.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Will the Government table the invoices with respect to the expenditures for which this money will be placed? Will the Government do this in order to give us some indication of where it will go? We want future energy development, not past debts paid.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, my Department would be glad to assist the Hon. Member in researching his questions so that he can work from an appropriate data base.
This work will be done from now until January, 1987. I do not see how the Hon. Member can possibly suggest that the work which will be done from April until at least Janaury, 1987, is work which has been done in the past.


AIRPORTS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In spite of, or because of, the ability of a Radio-Canada reporter to breach security at both Dorval and Mirabel Airports, will the Minister decide to carry out the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport and take over all airport security, not leaving it up to the airline companies to do it on the cheap, which companies hire untrained scabs to carry out security at Mirabel and Dorval?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the Hon. Member that 1 take the situation very seriously. As I indicated earlier, we are taking
April 9, 1986

steps to upgrade the standards of the security screening staff. We are also taking steps to improve the comprehensive training program. Yes, I am even considering the suggestion to which the Hon. Member refers.


WAGES OF BAGGAGE INSPECTORS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that commissionaires issuing parking tickets at the parking lots at Dorval and Mirabel Airsports are paid over $6 an hour and the security screeners are paid around $4 an hour, will the Minister give greater priority to those who screen passengers, baggage, and hand luggage, over those who issue parking tickets?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as 1 indicated in an earlier answer, the Solicitor General and I are developing a comprehensive enhanced security program for all airports which will cover the longer term. In the immediate term there are some measures which we are implementing. We are improving the system all the time.
I want to assure the Hon. Member that I will be calling in representatives of the airlines next week, as well as representatives of Burns Security Services and other security agencies, to see what steps might be implemented to address this very serious problem.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Recent information, as recent as two hours ago, suggests that the United States may be contemplating a military strike against Libya. While we are all desperately concerned about terrorism, will the Government express its concerns to the U.S. administration about the dangers inherent in escalating any military action in the Mediterranean at this time?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that the American Government is well aware of the dangers indeed in escalating any action in that area or elsewhere. The American Government and others are growing progressively concerned about the irresponsible and criminal misconduct of some agents of countries which appear to be giving succour to terrorism and terrorist activity, which is reprehensible and completely unacceptable to Canada and every other civilized country.
Petitions


POINTS OF ORDER
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my question during Question Period, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) appeared to be inadvertently cut off by the Speaker when she replied that at no time did Premier Devine ask us for a floor price for oil. I wanted to make sure that that was not lost from the Hansard record.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE-WITHDRAWAL
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) was questioning the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and I inadvertently blurted out that that was a lie. 1 want to assure the House that 1 have too much respect for that Hon. Member ever to accuse him of lying, and 1 would like to withdraw that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), 1 have the honour to table in both official languages the government responses to petitions Nos. 331-12 and 331-13.



BORROWING AUTHORITY


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority, in both official languages.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the pleasure to table a petition on behalf of a number of my

April 9, 1986
Petitions
constituents from the Dixonville area regarding the drought assistance programs for farmers in the Peace country.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and honour to present a petition signed by residents of the riding of Huron-Bruce protesting continued operation of the Morgentaler clinic in violation of Section 251 of the Criminal Code.


Mr. Speaker:: Would all those who are not presenting petitions please sit down or go somewhere else?


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and honour to present petitions from the Dart-mouth-Halifax area in Nova Scotia, from Sydney, Nova Scotia, and from Lively, Ontario. All of these petitions protest the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to pension income being used as earned income for the calculation of benefits. All these petitioners protest and ask Parliament to withdraw the iniquitous provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from hundreds of people of my riding who call upon the Government to make sure that the consumer receives the benefit of lower oil prices at the pump.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I continue to submit petitions reflecting the absence of a creative youth policy on the part of the Government and I have 450 signatures protesting again the cancellation of Katimavik. The petitioners come from Sir Wilfrid Laurier University, Newfoundland, Victoria, Windsor, Saskatoon and Nova Scotia.


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present another petition signed by 34 residents of the National Capital Regional who are very much opposed to the National Capital Commission's proposal to turn the Mile Circle into an embassy row. They indicate that Mile Circle was designated in 1925 by the Ottawa Improvement Commission as a national park and they are very much opposed to this change.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I have here four petitions from my riding.
The first one bears the signatures of Danville residents urging the Government to restore the kind of climate that should exist with respect to the use of a major natural resource, asbestos.
I have another petition signed by a group of people from Asbestos in my riding. Most of them are asbestos workers and they too urge the Government to implement a policy with a view to promoting the use of asbestos in the safest way possible.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by residents of Richmond in my riding. They want the Government to come up with a good, strong and worthwhile asbestos policy.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, once again I have the honour and privilege of presenting a petition signed by constituents in the federal ridings of Westmorland- Kent and Moncton expressing concern for the future of the CN shops and concern that the assessment is taking a great deal of time. They are very worried about the ramifications of that assessment on the economy of New Brunswick.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 530 and 532.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	What amounts of federal, provincial and other funds arc required to operate the Wildlife Interpretation Centre (a) Crcston Valley, British Columbia (b) Prairie, Webb, Saskatchewan (c) Wye Marsh near Midland. Ontario (d) Cap Tourmente near Quebec City (e) Perce on the Gaspc Peninsula in Quebec?
2.	Is any other funding involved and, if so, from what sources?
3.	How does the budget for 1985-86 for each Centre compare with the budget for 1984-85 and the estimates for 1986-87?
4.	How does the number of federal employees for 1985-86 at each Centre compare with staffing levels for 1984-85, and those anticipated for 1986-87?
5.	How many volunteer staff were required in 1985-86 at each Centre and how do these figures compare with the number of volunteers used in 1984-85 and those anticipated in 1986-87?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: April 9, 1986

1. The costs to the federal Government for the running of the five Wildlife Interpretation Centres during the fiscal year 1986-87 are the following:
	Federal	Provincial	Other
1986-87			
Creston	$ 25,000 (operating funds)	S 25,000	NoneWebb	$ 75,000 (operating funds); plus $ 25,000 (Maintenance for building and parking)	up to $ 10,000	NoneWye	$ 125,000 (loan) plus $ 35,000 (maintenance)	None	Not availableCap Tourmente	$ 12,000 (maintenance)	None	Not availablePerce	None	Not available	None2.	Yes. Creston-Province of British Columbia (through Creston Valley Wildlife Management Authority). Webb- Province of Saskatchewan and admission fees. Wye- Volunteer contributions and admission fees. Cap Tourmente- Admission fees. Perce-Province of Quebec.3.	The following figures include federal funds only.Financial Year 1984-85	1985-86	1986-87 (estimated)Creston $	133,000	$ 25,000	$ 25,000Webb $	217,000	$ 90,000	$ 100,000Wye $	282,000	S 423,000'	$ 160.0002Cap Tourmente $	185,000	up to $ 85,000s	$ 12,000Perce $	158,000	$ 3,000	NoneLegend	1.	Includes $ 200,000 grant + $ 2.	Includes $ 125,000 loan 3.	Includes up to $ 73,000 loan	175,000 loan	4. Federal employees employed in tion Centres number as follows:	the Wildlife Interpreta	Financial Year	1984-85	1985-86	1986-87Creston	7	None	NoneWebb	12	None	NoneWye	16	2*	1 *Cap Tourmente	10	None	NonePerce	9	3*	3 *
The Department of the Environment has lent in 1985-86 and will lend in the 1986-87 these employees to provide expertise and knowledge but receives reimbursement of their salary for services rendered.
5. The Department of the Environment did not keep records of volunteer staff in 1984-85 and has no access to records for 1985-86 or predictions for 1986-87.


Mr. Blaikie: Were any benefits granted to the Hon. Jean Marchand on the termination of his tenure as Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission and, if so. what was the (a) amount of any cash settlement (b) timing and amount of any subsequent cash compensation paid or payable as part of the arrangement (c) nature and value of any non-pecuniary compensation agreed to?
Order Paper Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The
Canadian Transport Commission has been advised that it is not the pratice of the Treasury Board to reveal details of separation settlements. It is the policy of the Treasury Board, however, that separation payments may not exceed two years' salary, with the precise amounts varying according to the circumstances of the separation, the age of the individual, length of service, and likely difficulty in securing re-employment. Each case is considered by the Treasury Board.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker if questions Nos. 508 and 531 could be made orders for return, the returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 508 and 531 be deemed to have been made orders for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Althouse: 1.	In (a) 1982-83 (b) 1983-84 (c) 1984-85 (d) 185-86, whal funding was supplied for poultry research at the (i) Kintwill, Nova Scotai (ii) Agassiz, British Columbia (iii) Ottawa, Ontario facilities of the Department of Agriculture?
2.	In each case, how much funding (a) was supplied by (i) the federal Government (ii) provincial Governments (iii) private industry (b) is projected for projected for 1986-87 by each?
3.	(I) In (a) 1982-83 (b) 1983-84 (c) 1984-85 (d) 1985-86, how many (i) professional (ii) non-professional person-years were involved in poultry research of each of the three facilities?
3.	(2) What is the forecast (a) professional (b) non-professional person-years for 1986-87?
4.	(1) In (a) 1982-83 (b) 1983-84 (c) 1984-85 (d) 1985-86, what poultry research projects were completed?
4.	(2) What projects are (a) currently under way (b) forecast for each of the facilities in 1986-87?
5.	Is it the Government's intention to maintain, for the next five years, the current levels of federal funding for the current number of both professional and non-prosessional person-years at each of the poultry research facilities in Kentvill, N.S., at Agassix, B.C. and at Ottawa, Ont.?
Return tabled.


Mr. Boudria: Between September 17, 1984 and December 31, 1985, how many contracts or agreements were entered into by the Government with chartered accounting firms and, in each case, what was the (a) name of the firm (b) length of the agreement (c) total cost?

April 9, 1986
5.0. 29
Return tabled.
[ Translation]


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Before going to Motions for Papers, I am in receipt of two applications under Standing Order 29. I am prepared to deal with them in the order in which they were received although they are similar.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour knows, earlier today I sent you notice of my intention to move, under the provisions of Standing Order 29, a motion for an emergency debate, if you should decide that the circumstances cited in my notice warrant that conclusion.
Briefly stated, my reasons for making this appeal are as follows: Yesterday, the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) made a decision affecting the pricing of grain in Canada which will take some $1 billion out of the income of prairie farmers. This is coming on top of a situation in which 40,000 farmers are already on the verge of bankruptcy. Such circumstances are leading to a virtually zero income for prairie farmers this year. Our conclusion from this is that if anything constitutes the grounds for an emergency debate, this is it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have also given to you notice of a similar motion that we believe demands an emergency debate.
The reasons we have put forward include not only the severe economic impact this matter would have upon the farming community, but the failure of the Government to come to grips with this situation with the United States administration to work out a reasonable solution allowing a proper agreement among the export-producing countries to resolve the problem of increasingly lower grain prices around the world and therefore the threat of major bankruptcies in the western Canadian farm economy.
Sir, we hope you will consider this motion a matter of deep urgency which requires immediate action.


Mr. Speaker:: Both the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry
(Mr. Axworthy) gave me the required notice of their applications for an emergency debate under Standing Order 29. Since they in effect deal with the same subject, 1 propose to rule on them together.
The House will know that the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, and the Government in its response to that report, had something substantial to say concerning the Speaker's role in exercising the responsibilities of the Chair under Standing Order 29 and what the Chair should or should not say with regard to applications. Therefore, I am not yet persuaded that the circumstances set out by the Hon. Members in their applications establish the existence of a genuine emergency calling for immediate debate, as envisaged by the Standing Order. In my view, therefore, the applications do not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I must rule accordingly.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cote (Langelier) that Bill C-91, an Act to establish the Competition Tribunal and to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I decided to participate in the debate today because we on this side of the House, in this quarter of the House, are concerned with the increasing concentration of corporate power in Canada. We relate that concern to the provisions of

April 9, 1986

the Bill and to recent events in the country which are escalating the takeover fever.
In general terms we support the thrust of Bill C-91. We are glad that the Government has finally brought in legislation. A lot of work has already been done. The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) initiated the process of consultation which brought together whatever consensus there may be between business and Government as to the provisions of the Bill. He also initiated thorough consultations with consumer groups across the country.
The former Bill was Bill C-29, presented by Judy Erola when she was the Minister and the Member of Parliament for Nickle Belt. The Bill died on the Order Paper. The subject has been kicking around for years. I am told that the provisions of this Bill have mustered and mobilized business support, particularly from the Business Council on National Issues. However, I believe, and I am advised, that insufficient consumer consultation may have preceded its introduction.
The Hon. Member for Papineau, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) and other Members have explored what we believe are some of the deficiencies in the Bill, and we will be presenting the appropriate amendments at the appropriate time. However, I should like to draw to the attention of the House, and indeed the country, our submission that the merger provision is not strong enough. The competition tribunal set forth in the Bill-while it sets up a so-called independent tribunal-may be an advance, but we do not believe that the tribunal will be properly served by part-time members. We believe that the expertise and the burden on the tribunal will demand full-time attention, both in terms of developing the expertise and retaining it and in terms of dealing with the cases which will come before it. There are no criteria for membership set forth in the Bill. There is no review by the House of Commons of the appointments. I suspect that this will be yet another field for random, wide open and rampant patronage.
Bill C-91 is a watering down of Bill C-29. Under the former Bill, the merger criteria involved what in effect was a 12-point test. Now there are only six criteria involved in the merger provision. For instance, the present Government has eliminated the past anti-competition activity factor. It has eliminated the innovation in market factor. The economic efficiency defence is now based solely on the achievement of the economic efficiency of the company in question, not on the benefit of savings to the consumer as was formerly the case. When one analyses the present Bill, one realizes that the Government relies primarily on, using the words of the Bill, "the extent to which effective competition remains". I refer to Section 65(1 )(E). After the merger there is absolutely no definition of what the word "effective" means. It could be anything; we do not know. Presumably it is being left to interpretation by the competition tribunal as that tribunal eventually defines it.
Let us look at the provision relating to an abuse of dominant position where a giant corporation squeezes its competitors with non-compatible products, for instance. Under the Bill, the
Competition Tribunal Act
Crown must prove intent to abuse. That is almost impossible to prove, as the courts have illustrated in cases up to this point. 1 suppose the timing of the introduction of the Bill, long as it has taken to introduce it in the House, is coincidental. We have the Gulf-Hiram Walker takeover which is currently before the courts and before the scrutiny of shareholders. We have the Imasco-Genstar takeover, and we have witnessed an escalating takeover fever in the last number of months resulting in, we believe, an over-concentration of corporate power in Canada.

In its discussions across the country, the Government claims that we Canadians need big multinationals in Canada to compete with the big foreign multinationals. There may be some validity to this argument. We must have companies that are powerful enough and vigorous enough to respond to initiatives here on the Canadian market and on international markets, but in my view, recent takeovers do not support this argument. And if we analyse competition in Japan, in newly industrialized countries and even in Europe and the United States, we see a pretty clear movement towards the decentralizing of specific units where product quality can be ensured. Quality becomes the main factor in world markets, along with price, precision and especially customer service. And all these factors are just as important as the products themselves.
Takeovers by increasingly larger corporations are at odds with the principle of better quality through more defined units. And a number of questions arise in connection with recent takeovers; Where are the new jobs? Has the efficiency of both companies improved after the merger? Has competition really improved in Canada? Will Canadian technology be better off?

We have, incidentally, in a companion piece of legislation before the House a Bill which purports to relate to our financial institutions. I refer to a situation which is now before the Government. I speak of the attempted takeover by Imasco of Genstar. That takeover is being attempted in the face of a unanimous finance committee report of the House of Commons several months ago which protested and gave as a recommendation to the Government that a takeover by a nonfinancial institution of a financial institution be prohibited. That provision was reinforced last Monday night by the finance committee, again unanimously. It adopted a resolution adverse to the potential takeover of Genstar by Imasco. Why is this, Sir? I believe most Members of the House are concerned that a takeover by a non-financial institution of a financial institution is not in the best interests of the country. A financial institution so controlled can block or divert loans from competitors or to competitive allies. It can control cash flow. There is the temptation for self dealing that was only too apparent during the crisis three years ago in Ontario involving Greymac and other trust companies. Fundamental to our objections is the fact that the interests of the depositors are not necessarily going to be paramount where there is a conflict of interest in holding and where the shareholders in their co-

April 9, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
related and blended interests will take precedence over the depositors.
I venture to say, although there has not been too much public debate in the business community, that about 90 per cent of the businessmen and women in Canada, if you were to ask them privately in person, are disturbed by the growing concentration of economic and financial power in Canada. I think if you were to put the question personally they would admit that they are disturbed that more and more assets are winding up in fewer and fewer hands.
Some businessmen have been courageous enough to speak out. I refer to a recent article in Maclean's magazine by Peter Newman. He interviewed Bernard Ghert of Cadillac-Fairview. Mr. Ghert in response to Mr. Newman's inquiry said:
When one entity is both a creditor and an owner of equity in a company, there is an obvious conflict of interest.
1 regret to say that as this escalation in concentration has proceeded with an increasing corporate temperature the Government has turned a blind eye to it, and I do not believe that it is good for the country. I believe the advantage of widely held corporate institutions by thousands of shareholders gives Canadians a proprietary interest in equity terms in the future of our country. I think it gives people a stake, either through pension funds or through individual holdings in the future of Canada. As those opportunities for investment are diminished by this concentration, fewer and fewer Canadians will find a legitimate outlet for investment in their own country through the private enterprise available.
I want to add too that if these companies are privately held in larger and larger units, then the public has less and less ability to scrutinize the affairs of those domains that have a wider and wider purview over average Canadian life.
1 believe also, in terms of the phenomenon of power, that too much concentration of economic power lends itself to abuse in terms of attempted use of political power. 1 would think this House should turn its mind to this issue. 1 believe the House would also want to review some of the amendments we intend to propose to see whether this vogue, this wave of takeovers, can somehow be controlled.
[ Translation]
There is another phenomenon, the concentration of economic power in a few large cities in Canada, and I believe, and I submit to the House, that this is to the detriment of other regions in Canada. Such concentration will have repercussions on regional development policies, and management of these large corporations will drift farther and farther away from the small communities of this country.
Less competition has a number of immediate effects. Without competition, the pressure for lower prices diminishes. Without competition, there is no longer the same drive to offer a quality product. Without competition, consumers have a narrower range to choose from. Without competition, the
number of information sources we have is reduced. Without competition, consumer power drops and corporate power increases. And Canadian consumers are the losers.

The more concentration we have, the fewer outlets consumers will have. There used to be hundreds of opportunities in various businesses in various industries in Canada. Now those opportunities, those channels of choice are being narrowed. The number of brands is being reduced. There are reduced options for the consumer. There is a continued squeeze on small companies. There is more and more temptation on behalf of these larger units to indulge in predatory pricing or restraint in trade at the expense of independent Canadian small business.
We recognize, Mr. Speaker, that this issue has to be dealt with in a balanced way. There has been study after study. The economic council has looked at it, as well as the C.D. Howe Research Institute, and you can name the provincial and federal governments that have tried to deal with the issue. There has to be a balance between our ability as Canadians to compete internationally and the protection of our smaller businesses, particularly the Canadian consumer.
I had the honour under Mr. Pearson, when he was Prime Minister of our country, to be the first Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


David Orlikow: Why didn't you bring in some legislation?


John Napier Turner: We brought in a lot of
legislation. I want to say this to my friend from Winnipeg, that shortly after we set up the Department, got it moving and got it into operation, we had a change in leadership of the Party and the next Prime Minister elevated me to a different portfolio, otherwise 1 would have considered my interest in the consumer and the four rights of the consumer at that time. They were the right to choose, the right to be informed, the right to complain and the right to receive an answer. Those were the fundamental rights of the consumer at that time, and I doubt very much whether in this current piece of legislation or under the current philosophy of the Government that those rights are paramount.
What has happened under the laissez-faire attitude of this Government when it comes to corporate concentration? We now have an open season for the corporate raider. We have an open season for the asset hunter. We have an open season for those who wish to acquire assets as a short-cut to building a business and to building jobs.
As I said, I am particularly concerned with the impact of the phenomenom on small business. The bulk of jobs in small business give us the bulk of our new employment. Most employees of small business are women. Most of the opportunities for our young people will be found either in entrepreneurial opportunities in small business or by being hired by smaller business.
April 9, 1986

We can examine a lot of examples of over-concentration. I do not want to over-indulge myself at the expense of the House, but let us take the food and retail business. Every amalgamation, every merger makes entry of new business much more difficult. The giants control the price, the labels, the quality, the distribution network and the supply. Small business cannot compete with these giants in this particular theatre. More and more of the corner drugstores, the smaller enterprises and family stores are being closed across the country. Is that an advantage, Mr. Speaker? There are two sides to the question, but I think the loss in personal service and the loss in family proprietorship is not a net gain for the country. We will have more and more giants, fewer and fewer independent businesses able to compete, fewer jobs and more commercial bankruptcies.
I think, of course, the most important impact is on the consumer. If we take the recent situation in oil prices and compare the American experience with the Canadian experience, it illustrates quite clearly what I am trying to say to the House. Because of the diffuse nature of the United States oil industry, because of the intense competition, because of the multiplicity of refining capacity, when world oil prices went down world-wide, the American consumer got a far more immediate benefit than the Canadian consumer because competition was allowed to play. Here in this country we have only four major refineries. We have Esso, or Imperial Oil, we have Gulf, Texaco and Petro-Canada. Because of that concentration, I believe the Canadian consumer did not get the same benefit in lower prices as did the American consumer.
Concentration of power gives corporations more control over the pricing mechanism. 1 do not subscribe at all to the thesis of John Kenneth Galbraith that prices are uniquely in the hands of corporations. However, there is no doubt that the fewer the competitors, the less mobile and less flexible the pricing structure.
I believe, as does my caucus, and I believe the vast membership of the Liberal Party, that the pendulum has swung too far. We believe that there is now a concentration of economic power for the sake of concentration, maybe even for the sake of massaging a few egos, and maybe even for the sake of enjoying paper transactions at the expense of building business and the country. That concentration is benefiting fewer and fewer people at the expense of more and more Canadians.
I sense that this is a growing concern to the average Canadian. I think that our citizenry is beginning to realize that all of these mergers, takeover bids, stock purchases, and buyouts are not just isolated games being played in corporate board rooms. What is happening will have a real impact on all of our lives. It will impact on the prices that we pay for food, clothes, shelter, books, movies, automobiles, telephones, and transportation, and on the quality and availability of these products.
Competition Tribunal Act
We believe that any competition policy should have, as its primary focus, the need to protect Canadians from the real damage of over-concentration. We are not against business getting bigger. If a business gets larger because of efficiency, marketing skills, good management and product, that is fine. That builds products, jobs, and Canada's competitive ability. We do not believe that the same result is achieved by the shortcut of mergers and takeovers. We can analyze the net result of every transaction, and in most of these instances we have yet to see the new jobs, new efficiency, so-called synergy, and so-called competitive advantage.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: If business in Canada becomes bigger through efficiency, marketing, and a better product in competition with others, that is fair ball, but it should not be done by simply buying out the competition or squeezing it out with unfair practices. The Canadian consumer must be uppermost in the mind of the House.
We believe that this Bill, in its present form, has weighted the argument in favour of the corporate sector to the detriment of the consumer. However, we believe that it is a step forward. With proper amendments, which we intend to submit during the legislative process, we believe that the legislation can be salvaged and, if properly directed, can strike a real blow for Canadians against the overwhelming corporate financial power which is now emerging in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Leader of the Official Opposition several questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 recognized the Hon. Member for debate.


Mr. Gauthier:: You had better read your rules.


Mr. Speaker:: It is entirely up to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, but our practice has been that those speakers who have unlimited time have not been subject, under the rules, to the ten-minute question and comment period.


John Napier Turner: I have known the Hon. Member for a long time. I will hear what he has to say.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, 1 will ask two questions and will try to keep them brief. I have a list of 22 major takeovers which took place since 1979. Eighteen of them took place while the Liberals formed the Government. Why did they not act then?
Is it not true that the conglomerate takeovers which have occurred, which involve hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, may be very profitable to the shareholders and the executives of the company, but that most of them really do not add a single job or a single new technique to the country? Of what benefit are they to the country?
80179-3!

April 9, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I tried to address the issue of the benefits. I would want to be satisfied in any individual case that there would be a net gain in jobs, productive capacity, technological capacity, and so on. However, in too many cases the immediate benefit happens to be for the majority shareholder. In many cases, despite reviews by the securities commission, the minority shareholders do not get the amount of leverage they might have. Without trespassing on a current inquiry, I can mention the concern of the Southam shareholders in the transaction with Torstar.
There were a good many takeovers in the years the Hon. Member mentioned. My argument is that the process has been accelerating in recent years. My colleague, the Member for Papineau, brought the issue to a conclusion by presenting an opportunity to strike the parameters of a Bill. Judy Erola brought that Bill into the House. As 1 understand, it was the intention of Mr. Trudeau's Government to pursue that matter actively. It is true that the problem did not arrive yesterday, but it is escalating and being aggravated. I believe it now needs the attention of the country.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, there are, of course, those who will congratulate the Government for having introduced Bill C-91 almost as much as the Government has congratulated itself. I suspect, however, that those who will accord the most enthusiastic congratulations are the friends of the Government.
I believe that this Bill represents another manifestation of the trickle-down theory, or perhaps even the trickle-through theory. Beginning in 1969 there was a flood of attempts at reform of competition policy. Dam after dam was mounted in advance of that flood by big business. After that final barrier presented by the Gang of Five, we have a mere trickle of reform. I suppose it would be too much to say that it is a law against rape written by the rapist. It certainly is the illegitimate child of big business, the former Liberal Government, and the Tories. On the evidence, this Bill has ignored the concerns which would be expressed by consumers, labour, and others who, in the context of the consortium of the two old parties and business, represent the powerless, as all too often those affected are the powerless.
It seems to me that the Liberals protest too much. They propose to support the Bill and have it go to committee where they will do some hand wringing, followed, I am sure, by some Pilate-washing of the hands. This is not unexpected from that Party because it has never claimed an ideological basis upon which it would combat this Bill.
However, one might have expected a little more from the Tories. They are supposed to stand for an idealistic, free enterprise, capitalistic sort of society. However, do they really? Are they really in favour of a free market? Are they really in favour of all the interests of small business which are already ignored by Government action and victimized by banks with preferences for funding the mergers which have been so much a matter of discussion? Are they really in favour of the
initiative, creativity, and competitive spirit which small business characterizes, but which has been so ill-supported, or are they in favour of the domestic feudalism and mercantilism which has evolved over recent times and has become of late such a matter of so much concern? Already small business is starved for funds as a result of capital being mobilized, not for creative purposes, new production or new products, but for the aggrandizement of power on the part of a relative few.
We have heard all too often during this debate the allegation that we socialists could not understand the attributes of capitalism which make it so worthy an ideal. The critics claim socialism constitutes centralized, co-equal control of economic and political power. It represents a system not subject to market forces which result in efficiency and creativity. They say that socialism lacks the element in the free enterprise market-place which so inevitably results in socially responsible action on the part of investors. They say that socialism does not provide that risk-taking will be rewarded. Yet we have to ask: Is centralized control by the Reichmanns, the Desmarais, the Bronfmans and the rest of the nine families preferable to state control?
What are the motives of those who are so heavily engaged in acquisitions and mergers? I submit they are nothing more than wealth and power. Power which The Financial Post says will inevitably lead to a relatively few families controlling every aspect of Canadian society; a new form of feudalism based on mercantilism which will ultimately lead to social unrest and the destruction of the kind of society in which we live and to which we aspire.
Where is the market-place discipline resulting from competition? What new products have been the result of the activities of the Blacks? Surely the disappearance in substance of Dominion stores does not testify to any benefit to the consumer in communities now left with one supermarket. What price advantages accrue to the consumer when market control means control of prices? What does it mean when the interest paid on borrowed money increases the prices to be paid by the consumer? Where is the social responsiblity involved in the trading games which go on to the benefit of management, whether they win or lose in their merger attempts? What benefit accrues to Windsor if the attempt by Gulf to take over Hiram Walker is successful and Seagram causes the disappearance of this venerable employer noted for its social responsibility and job security for so long? No, there is so much that is wrong.
This Government is really devoted to a free enterprise system which is based on the ideal. The Government adheres to the view expressed so clearly by Conrad Black, that "the traditional ideal of the Canadian private sector being controlled by a numberless horde of proverbial contented widows and orphans and other small investors is contrived nonsense". He goes on to say, and this Government agrees, that "financial baronism is unsentimental and relentless". And, I say, anti-
April 9, 1986

social and not in the interests of the vast majority of Canadians. I believe this Bill requires further consideration. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan (Mr. Angus):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-91, an Act to establish the Competition Tribunal and to amend the
Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence
thereof, be not now read a second time but be read a second time this day six
months hence.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is in order, therefore the debate is now on the amendment.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to lead off the portion of the debate dealing with the amendment which will provide greater time for the kind of consultation should have occurred in the drafting of this Bill. It will give six months for the Government to meet with the groups who are really affected, the consumer groups of Canada. It is not big business, which has very successfully negotiated out of this Bill everything with teeth, who needs protection. It is the average Canadian consumer who goes to the corner store or supermarket, who buys a car or a service, who needs protection from the continual consolidation and empire-building we are seeing in this country. Nowhere is that more important than in the smaller communities across this land. People living there do not have the opportunity to go to two or three different supermarkets. They only have one. They are held captive to the pricing and marketing policies of that particular store. There is no competition. We have to give them time to have some input into the drafting of this Bill.
This process, I gather, started in the mid-1960s and was foiled time and time again by the vested interests of the big companies. They believe that free enterprise is the freedom to consolidate, to gobble up their competitors so that they and they alone are able to make decisions. We have seen them all across this land. We have seen company towns which go beyond the paper-mill or mine but do own the company store and the land. In some cases we believe very strongly that they think they own the people. We have to have a Bill which will allow them some kind of say, a Bill which will really provide teeth in our advertising laws so that consumers know exactly what they are getting. Right now only two of the six sectors in the Advertising Act are effective in any way. That certainly does not help the people of this country.
Throughout this debate we have heard from my colleagues who have suggested very strongly that the Bill before us is nothing more than a public relations exercise to try and give the people of Canada the impression that there are going to be new measures to protect them, to ensure that there is fair competition. However, what we have seen elsewhere in the Government should have led us to recognize the truth behind this Bill.
We have the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) moving to deregulate transportation; that is, to remove the rules so that Government can no longer direct the operations of
Competition Tribunal Act
our transportation companies. We have, on the other hand, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) who has moved to take the rules off the game in terms of energy. It should be no surprise to us that we have Bill C-91, which, in effect, does not move to apply new and stronger rules into the operation of companies in this country.
This should not be a surprise as it is consistent with the philosophy of the Conservative Party. They are not prepared to go to bat for those Canadians, the average man and woman throughout this country who looks to the Government for some protection. They want to be protected from that ad that offers them a golden deal, whether it is on a car or on a tape deck or whatever, only to find when they have been enticed down to the store that it is not there, or it is not the way it was said to be. They need that kind of protection. It is the responsibility of Governments, whether at the federal, provincial or municipal level to provide that leadership so we can protect our consumers. We are not necessarily talking about dictating to companies how they conduct their business, but we are talking about ensuring that the rules of the game are fair, balanced and applicable to all.
I think we all have instances of lack of competition in our home community. We have one in Thunder Bay in broadcasting. Owned by one company we have a CBC television outlet, a CTV television outlet, an AM radio outlet, and an FM radio outlet, along with the local television listings. In radio we have competition. We have seen the value of aggressive competition in the improvement in the quality of services in radio. In addition to the one that is owned by the conglomerate, we have a separate AM commercial station, a local CBC outlet with local production, local news gathering, as well as CBC-FM. We have competition within the broadcasting industry in terms of radio. In terms of the listings for television radio we have competition both from the newspapers-the daily and the weekly-as well as from the publication put out by this company.
In television we have no local competition. We have seen over the years that the quality of the services provided are not anywhere near what they are in other communities. We have one news package. At six o'clock you can sit down in front of your TV in Thunder Bay and turn on either Channel 2 or Channel 4 and get the same news package. You do not get a comparison. There is no competition to outhustle the other guy for television news. There is no competition to provide the best quality programming. Competition can be extremely beneficial to the consumers, whether they are consumers of television or radio, or consumers who are buying those necessities of life.
It is time that this Government took this Bill back, took the six months that we are prepared to give them to redo it and bring it back in a form that will very positively impact on consumers of this country, and that will finally tell big business what they can do with their tactics. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

April 9, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about Bill C-91 which was introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post (Mr. Cote). In the light of the Minister's past experience with respect to consumer protection, particularly concerning Quebec's oil industry, I would suggest this is another failure and most Canadians simply cannot have confidence in him. He may be very pleasant and a real gentleman, but unfortunately he is a Minister from Quebec and, in this Government, he has no clout. He is powerless and did not even budge when he and all Quebecers were held up to ridicule here in the House of Commons by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney). And, on behalf of I do not know whom, this man who claims to be Minister of Consumer Affairs-I think he has a tendency to protect companies more than consumers-has introduced a Bill which is incomplete and does not provide enough consumer protection.
As in many other cases, Mr. Speaker, we get the Bill after certain deals have been made. I am referring to the oil industry. We all remember the famous O'Farrell report which was tabled by this Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post and in which it was clearly established that Quebec's refineries would not operate at full capacity-against the best interests of Quebecers-if the Government endorsed and approved the proposed sale of the Montreal East Gulf refinery to Ultramar.
Mr. Speaker, at a press conference the Minister made a firm commitment eight times in response to Ministers that he would make the report public the following Friday. The press conference was held on Wednesday, and I was there. On Thursday morning, the day after the press conference, the Minister just did not have anything more to say and we finally got the report long after the time it should have been released for useful debate. The Government did nothing to prevent what will be described in Quebec's history as a barbaric move against Quebecers: it approved a deal enabling a foreign company to buy a refinery-yet there were prospective Canadian buyers-only to shut it down, throw 450 Montreal East workers out on the street and, worse still, eliminate the competition which was the protection of Quebec consumers.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Government speaks about a tribunal in this bill. How will this tribunal be constituted and how will its members be appointed? In view of all that has happened since September 4 as concerns patronage, corruption and appointments, and of all the mistakes made by Ministers and other members of this Government, how can we of the Opposition trust these people and still be serious about our responsibilities to our constituents and the Canadian people? How can we trust these people who will make appointments strictly for political reasons when we know that the great majority of those appointed by this Government will be representatives of the industry who care nothing about the consumers and who think only about their profits?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister has introduced this bill and we know that he will soon be tabling other amendments concerning drugs which will go against the interests of consumers. It is a fact that large companies, multinationals are putting pressure on this Government and it is true that the friends of Brian carry a lot of weight and have a lot of money. Mine do not, but they are sincere, honest and ordinary people. They are consumers.


An Hon. Member:: You are all angels in Sainte-Marie.


Jean-Claude Malépart: The best proof of this, Mr. Speaker... the Hon. Member has just said that all the people in Sainte-Marie are angels. In fact, everyone read in the newspapers about the $7 million winners in Sainte-Marie. We had a good proof of the honesty of these people when someone found the winning ticket and brought it back to its rightful owner and the winnings were shared equally. This clearly shows the honesty and generosity of poor people. They could have made a token gesture like people in high society often do and given a mere $50,000 while keeping $7 million for themselves, but they shared this money equally, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I know that in committee my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), who have much experience in this area, with the support of consumers associations, will make suggestions and fight to amend this Bill for the purpose of improving it.
Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons why the Bill as introduced is unacceptable, not only because of its lack of substance or effectiveness, and because of the way cases will be heard and people will be appointed to the Tribunal, but especially because of the lack of confidence Canadians have in this Conservative Government generally and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in particular.
Mr. Speaker, all polls indicate clearly, over and over again, that Canadians have no confidence or, to use an expression which everybody can understand, cannot "trust" this team and especially the Prime Minister. That is why the Liberal Party will do its utmost to force the Government to give this Bill some credibility, to ensure that, throught an appointment formula, consumers in every region-Canada is a large country and people in Quebec think differently from those in Alberta and have different concerns-are duly represented on this committee. We must not let the Government alone appoint the people on this committee, for they would then be strictly large corporation people.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude with this, because there are in my party a number of my colleagues who know this subject better than I do and who have some comments to make. But I want you to know that over the next few days and weeks, the Liberal Party will Fight, under the leadership of my colleagues and friends the Hon. Member for Papineau and Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, to ensure that, once adopted, the Bill will protect first and foremost consumers' interests.
April 9, 1986


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support my colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), in his attempt to have the Government reconsider its position on this legislation by delaying second reading for six months.
The Government has failed in its effort to address the issue of competition in a fair and equitable manner. Instead, it has introduced a Bill which it believes will improve the opportunities of consumers and effectively deal with business concentration in this country. However, the fact is that the Bill is hopelessly inadequate. The Government is extremely negligent when it puts forward a Bill that will not protect Canadians from the effects of corporate concentration in this country.
When one considers the harm that will come to consumers, small and medium sized businesses, I am amazed that here has not been a great movement by that business sector to tell the Government that it has betrayed them.
The Conservative Party of Canada has stood up for many years to say that they represent small business and that spirit of independence and driving force which has made the economy in all parts of this country work. It is that sector which hires the largest number of people and services all the communities in this land. The Conservative Party has falsely stood up to say that it supports small business and will protect and nurture that sector of the economy. This Bill is a betrayal of that position. The Government had a responsibility to introduce effective competition legislation, yet this Bill is misleading and simply ineffective.
The previous Government failed hopelessly in addressing this question. It shackled small business with many constraints. It allowed the chartered banks to charge enormous interest rates that essentially destroyed many small businesses in this country and wiped out the investments of thousands of people who had invested their savings in small business. They worked hard, only to have the previous Government completely destroy the initiative and wipe out their investment and the services they provided throughout the country. That destruction of small business took place because of a lack of any effective competition legislation.
The Conservatives told small business how they would assist them, yet this Bill represents the single largest failure by the Government to protect small business.
What is the purpose of competition legislation? It is to address the question of whether a sector of the economy should be controlled by three or four large players who determine the sourcing of raw material, the sourcing of supplies to that sector, produces the bulk of the material within that sector and determines who will distribute and supply it in the communities. The fact is that many of our sectors of the economy are controlled by three or four powerful giants. Furthermore, they do not compete with each other but divide the country into
Competition Tribunal Act
market shares and determine which small and medium sized businesses can participate in the economy. They begin to informally fix prices, determine supply and essentially decide which businesses will be allowed to participate and thereby essentially drive out other businesses.
We need fair and strong competition legislation that will protect small businesses and guarantee that the market-place is indeed free and open to participation. This extremely weak piece of legislation will not accomplish any of those goals but will ensure that concentration continues and that an increasing number of small businesses will be driven out in favour of one large business within a sector.
The role of the chartered banks in controlling the economy has been pointed out today. As well, we have heard what major oil companies have done to squeeze out small distributors and the difficulties they have had in obtaining supplies and setting proper prices in their communities. Those smaller suppliers have asked Members of Parliament for improvements, but the louder voices have suppressed those requests.
The Conservatives made the same mistake as the previous Liberal Government. They have left the small business sector to hang out to dry.
It has also been mentioned that the publishing sector is in the same dilemma. Every year an increasing number of independent small newspapers fall to the newspaper chains. Ultimately the single thought of a single owner will be conveyed to hundreds of communities and the quality of news that appears will be reduced. Indeed, the Kent Commission pointed out that there were some very severe problems with concentration in that sector. Those concerns were ignored. At that time Conservative Members of the House chose to sensationalize it. They suggested that there were tremendous anti-democratic manoeuvres at work and that the results of the commission had to be deeply buried.
In fact, there were some extremely good ideas which came out of the Kent Commission. These ideas would have seen a large number of publications fostered in a community, providing an opportunity for different ideas which true working democracies bring out. However, the Government refuses to acknowledge that type of thing, at least with this legislation. It refuses to fulfil a responsibility to protect an independent and flourishing small business sector. Instead, its protection has been extended to the majors in each sector; to the large oil companies, to the large chartered banks and to the large two or three firms working within each economic sector.
The House has been given an opportunity today to suspend this Bill for six months while we see developed a stronger piece of legislation. I am certain other of my colleagues will want to share their opinions on this matter. It is my sincere hope that it will be suspended. This would give the Government an opportunity to fulfil its responsibilities to the small business

April 9, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
sector, to protect it and allow it to grow and flourish in those communities.
There are many parts of the country in which the recession is not yet over. In those parts of the country there are massive lay-offs. As an example I put forward the forest industry in British Columbia. The paycheques and the strength of economy are just not there. There has been tremendous harm done to the people who work in those communities. The small businesses which depend upon them have not only been harmed by the recession, they have been harmed by the tremendous increases in oil prices and interest rates. They have been harmed by the imposition of taxes which the Government has placed on them. They have been harmed by the cut-backs of basic transportation services and of postal services. The irresponsible cumulative effects of the actions of the Conservative Government have severely handicapped many small businesses.
The legislation before us is another example of the irresponsible behaviour of the Government. It has failed to live up to its responsibility to provide that protection to small business, to ensure that there is an adequate framework within which real competition can take place in the market-place. I will now terminate my remarks so that other Members of the House can make their contributions.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased with this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-91, since it concerns a subject that is very much in the news at this time and that is being discussed and debated in many circles.
It is also a subject that has been studied, analyzed and reviewed for a number of years. One of my colleagues said in the course of the debate on Bill C-91 that there had been six or seven attempts in the past to improve this legislation. I must say that, quite frankly, I think there are some very good reasons for wanting to improve the legislation.
In recent years, Mr. Speaker, as discussions and negotiations went on and appropriate remedies were being considered, we saw a number of mergers and such like and finally came to the conclusion that our economy was increasingly becoming a world of very large corporations, an economy with only a few large financial institutions, and I must admit that these mergers and takeovers were not and are not always in the best interest of the consumer.
I feel that for the time being we should support the Government's initiative, which in the circumstances would seem to be offering an improvement over the previous situation. However, Mr. Speaker, I think that once we have accepted the principle that the situation needs improvement and we are prepared to make the effort to introduce the appropriate remedies, and there is a general willingness to do so, we should also be prepared to take the time to consider what has to be done to achieve the best possible results.
I recognize that it is not an easy subject and that it is not always possible to foresee in advance everything that could happen, but I believe that there is unanimity on a number of points. For instance, everyone recognizes that, more often than not, competition means efficiency and, in most cases, increased productivity. Competition is also to the advantage or in the interests of consumers. In many respects, it is also a major cause of technological improvement. These are principles which everyone must recognize.
However, it seems to me that there are great dangers if the mechanisms provided are incomplete or badly articulated to the extent that the law cannot be effective or useful to solve future difficulties and problems.
In the past few years I have seen situations which are altogether unacceptable, in my opinion. We are now debating Bill C-91 entitled an Act to establish the Competition Tribunal and to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence thereof. Various speakers have referred to banks, to the Patent Act and to a wide range of issues, and I think that the average Canadian consumer is lost in that maze of legislative provisions.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that this Bill will have an impact on the day-to-day life of practically all Canadians.
I am talking about common situations that can be found everywhere. For example, in our ridings, outside major urban centres, we have all kinds of small businesses which are forced to make considerable efforts to market their products. In many cases those small businesses have to face very well organized and structured competitors who have ready access to huge financial resources. The unfortunate result is that many small businesses are literally gobbled up, not to say destroyed, because big companies are always intent on doing away with competition. There are many such examples.
There are also other factors which in my view are part of the consumer's day-to-day life. We have those big corporations which, in order to strangle, to kill competition, will offer a whole range of products at retail prices that are well below the cost prices of other small retailers.
How is it then possible for a small businessman who does not have the purchasing power of this or that big chain to survive, when he is forced to sell a considerable volume of products at much higher prices, because his cost prices are higher than the selling prices of the big companies?
Mr. Speaker, because of all the many situations that are so detrimental to Canadians and consumers, it is our duty as a Parliament, first, to look for an improvement, but also to look for the best possible improvement. And it seems to me that there are some flaws in the legislation that could be amended if the Government committed itself to clearly and openly protecting the interests of consumers. Of course, there are good points. Let me mention only one, the fact that this is no longer a criminal matter, that the standard of proof will now be the one used before civil courts, the test being the weight of evidence. This is a significant improvement. However, the
April 9, 1986

fact that there is no reference at all, in whatever form, to the so-called "lost leader" seems to be quite an oversight.
Another major oversight that was emphasized by a number of my colleagues is the fact that appointments are left to the discretion of the Government. Those appointments are not subject to the recently introduced mechanism designed to monitor or oversee them. In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, there is every reason to believe, in view especially of this Government's record, that party hacks will be favoured in that process, and, of course, they will be selected from private enterprise which will then have the responsibility of administering the Act. This looks ominous to me, and I am extremely concerned.
Mr. Speaker, it also seems obvious, looking at this legislation, that very large corporations will be clearly favoured as against the small ones.
As I have already explained, big corporations have substantial capital and they are always willing to inject millions of dollars, and even tens of millions of dollars in the system to block the opposition of small groups of consumers or other people who would like to express their disapproval. These corporations do so by investing either in their operation or in public relations so that, eventually, they must always win over those who are not as able to express themselves because they do not have the same resources.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I believe that when we try to correct the situation, we should make it easier for third parties and all those who defend the interests of consumers to present a united front when they make a claim of some kind. This is another weakness which I find completely unacceptable. If the Government really wanted to do something practical and reasonable about this major concern which has been discussed for decades, I think that it would be very simple to make the necessary changes quickly. We would then be able to give quick passage to the Bill as it would be in the best interests of consumers.
For the moment, after looking at Bill C-91, I have the feeling that the dice are definitely loaded in favour of big business and, naturally, to the disadvantage of the consumer. I think that we must try to bring back some balance to protect adequately the interests of consumers, and I trust that this will be done soon when further amendments are introduced.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to take part in this debate. I wish I had been able to speak sooner so I might have had more time. I would like to warn my good friends on the Government side that I intend to do a little bit of philosophizing in the name of and for the welfare and good order of the so-called free enterprise system. That might surprise Hon. Members but that is my intent.
Competition Tribunal Act
The motion before us is to provide for a six-month hoist. The matter could be dealt with if the Government would agree to take this Bill back to the drawing board. I think the Bill deserves some redrafting and reconsideration by the Government, if for no other reason than to get it passed much more quickly.
All of us agree that we have been waiting a long time for new and updated competition legislation. However, as long as the legislation is built on the traditional theory of free enterprise and market forces, then we have the same problem we have had for the last many years.
Free enterprise is great in theory. I suppose one could say the same thing for the positions of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler. They are great in theory.


Mr. Andre:: I don't think so. I wouldn't say that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: However, in practice-I would say to my hon. friend from Calgary that one of the things that drives people to totalitarianism on the left or the right is the implementation of the free enterprise theory in practice. People are driven to those sorts of extremes.


Harvie Andre: Revolutions and armed forces.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My colleagues and I are trying to promote a revolution at the ballot boxes, not at the end of a bayonet.
What underlies the theory of free enterprise and free market forces is the maximization of profit. In other words, Mr. Speaker, in a free enterprise system you do anything you have to do to make a buck, no matter who it hurts, whether it is the consumers or your own country.
I would like to say at the outset that members of the New Democratic Party are not opposed to making a profit. We never have been. We are for real competitive profit making in the private sector. We are against profit taking in the absence of real enterprise. To me, Sir, free enterprise means trying to do your best to make a conscionable profit based on the quality, durability, price, service and efficiency provided by whatever product is being sold.
The main problem with the theory of free enterprise and free market forces which needs to be considered over the next six months is that it is an invitation, as if one were needed, to greed, selfishness and the asking of "what's in it for me?" Tommy Douglas, who Members on all sides of the House have extolled at length in the House and all over the country, said many times many years ago that the trouble with free enterprise is that too much of it is neither free nor enterprising.
Mergers and takeovers are valid only if they pool resources and research, resulting in the maximum use of technology and efficiency which allows not only for a conscionable profit but provides the maximum benefit to the employees and consumers of that industry. Surely mergers and takeovers are invalid if, as and when they reduce competition, obtain market control over

April 9, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
any product or sector of a market, or are designed to make quick bucks in rapid turnover or in market speculation with shares. In most cases, mergers and takeovers do not create new jobs. In fact, in most cases they decrease jobs.
There have been countless instances where the instigators of mergers and takeovers arrange financing from the banks. Much of those funds come from the deposits of ordinary Canadians who have savings accounts, share accounts or term deposits in those banks. They use the money of Canadian citizens by arranging loans with financial institutions for their mergers or takeovers.
I could never understand why a large corporation in the transportation business would want to become involved in the oil and gas pipeline business or would want to become involved in mining. If one is involved in transportation, one is involved in transportation. Why not do a good job in what one has been set up to do?
I should like to refer to the drug business and to agriculture, both of which are and should remain in the public domain. To paraphrase Tommy Douglas once again-and it is something with which I profoundly agree-those who would profit from the misfortunes of others are basically immoral. The attempts by the Government to change our laws to provide monopoly powers for the manufacturers of brand name drugs in the name of allowing them to recover their research costs are not only despicable but unethical and unchristian. I am one of those persons who has to buy drugs. I can afford the ones I have to buy. Thank goodness for the Saskatchewan drug plan; 1 do not pay more than $3.50 for any kind of drug. However, what about those who cannot afford them? We cannot allow private dominance and private control over the research, development, manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs. We cannot allow it to be in the hands of one, two or three national or international drug manufacturing firms. It is an area in which free enterprise has no business. It is one place where free enterprise should not either make or take a profit. It should be in the hands of university medical schools and research departments, in the hands of the Departments of Health of the provinces and of the federal Government and in the hands of hospitals. All development and research should be in their hands and in the public domain.
Let us look at the multinational corporations which control food chains not only in Canada but internationally. The matters of plant and food research and of plant and food production should be in the public domain as well.
What is being extolled by the Government and its supporters in terms of their version of the theory of free enterprise is nothing more than a licence to exploit Canadians and people in other countries including those in poor countries, because those companies will want a return or a profit from the misfortunes of others. I submit that the legislation must address the issue of free enterprise, not "me" enterprise. That fundamental principle must be in the legislation, including its preamble.
Unless and until we reach that point, anything in the legislation will prove to be meaningless in the months and years to come. I hope the Government is willing to return to the drawing-board with this Bill for another couple of months and bring it back to the House in a much better form than the legislation which is before us now.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-91 and on our motion to hoist the Bill for six months, which is a way of protesting it. I see the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), who is from my town of Vancouver, sitting opposite. I also see the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) who used to own a small gas station in Quebec and is very interested in the energy field. In my 10 minutes I will try to talk about how the competition Bill does not do anything for lack of competition in the Canadian energy industry.
At the outset I say to the Minister of Energy that she has the worst of both worlds. She has a situation where Canadian consumers are not benefiting substantially and properly-


Pat Carney: That is ridiculous.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They are not benefiting from the dramatic fall in world oil prices.


Pat Carney: It is down 10 cents per litre.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister of Energy is heckling me. She can speak after me. She should talk to the average consumer in Vancouver Centre, in Toronto or in Montreal; parlez aux consommateurs de la province de Quebec. Consumers are not stupid. They look across the border and see the price which Americans are paying. Why are the Americans paying so little compared with us, even if we leave the tax matter aside? The reason we do not have competition in the oil industry-


Pat Carney: Why don't you move there?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister asks; "Why don't you move there?". It is because I am proud to be a Canadian. I want to see the Canadian system work.


John Horton McDermid: Tell us about their health plan.


Pat Carney: And their pension plan.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If Hon. Members opposite will listen, I will tell them what is the matter with the Minister's policy. The Hon. Minister of Energy deregulated, through the Western Accord, the oil industry; she went to the world market and away from a regulated price under the National Energy Program. The problem is that there is no free market in oil. It is an oligopolistic situation; there is no real competition in the oil industry.


John Horton McDermid: Why did the price fall?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is why it is not falling completely; that is the answer.
April 9, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is why it is not falling the way it should be falling. I do not know what Hon. Members are laughing at.


John Horton McDermid: You.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let me try again to get it through their thick heads. The fact is that in Canada oil prices have not fallen as they have fallen in the United States. Why?


John Horton McDermid: For all kinds of reasons.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: One reason is that there are more taxes in Canada than in the United States. That is one reason, and I admit it. Another reason is that oil companies are not passing on the gains as fast-


An Hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They say that it is in the pipeline and that it takes time, and Canadians know that.


Pat Carney: it is being passed on.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: As I said, the reason is that we do not have competition in the oil industry like the Americans do.
Let me point out that in Canada, Imperial, Texaco, Petro-Canada and Shell control 70 per cent of the retail market. The second string companies, such as BP, Irving Oil, Ultramar and Husky, control another 15 per cent. That means about eight companies control 85 per cent of the market. The remaining 15 per cent is controlled by independent operators. Independent operators in this context mean gasoline retailers who actually control the retail price themselves instead of being dictated to by their suppliers.
What is the policy of the Government? In fact it had Petro-Canada go out and buy more gas stations, so there is a further lack of competition in the industry. The United States has more refiners, more retailers, more oil companies and more competition. This is an old story in Canada, Mr. Speaker. Let me give some examples. First, consignment sales. The big oil companies give sales on consignment to the small retailer. They can control the selling price of the retailer. Let me remind the House of the case I raised in the House of the couple from Gravenhurst, George and Cora McAra.


John Horton McDermid: They were breaking the contract.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They were breaking the contract, the Member says. They had a consignment sales contract from Petro-Canada. They could not reduce their price. They could not have a gasoline war. That is an example of the problem. There are other methods of dealing with the independents, ways of squeezing them out of business and ways of controlling the
Competition Tribunal Act
refining and the market at the same time. This is why Canadian oil prices have not gone down as quickly as American prices.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 challenge the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to appoint, as Premier Pawley did in Manitoba, an official who will investigate why it took so long for the decrease in price to move through the system. Why did it take so long? Why did it take more than 60 days for those prices to be passed on?


John Horton McDermid: It didn't. Track it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It did. I invite the Hon. Member to check. I will show him the figures and he can look at them. I ask again, why are Canadians paying so much more for gas than Americans when you got rid of the tax? I ask the Hon. Member for Duvernay. He knows how the big oil companies work.
Let us look at this Bill. The Director of Investigation and Research for the Combines Branch made some recommendations which included a way of getting some competition into the oil industry. 1 do not have much time but I will go through some of them. One concerns the refining sector.
If you have more refiners you will have more competition. The Government is closing refineries. Look at the closure of the Gulf refinery in the east end of Montreal. The Director said that all reciprocal supply arrangements between refiners in excess of 90 days be prohibited, except where found by the RTPC to have a beneficial effect upon competition. The Director found quite clearly that these types of arrangements, which are very common in Canada, restrict competition.
Nothing in the Combines Act that we are debating today, nor in the present Act nor in this Bill would prevent these types of agreements. There is nothing on the refining level. "Outright prohibition on suppliers of motor fuels and their affiliates from obtaining direct or indirect control over retail prices, except where the supplier owns or operates a gas station". That is what the director recommended. There is no such prohibition in this Bill. The Director recommended doing away completely with any method of price control, whether it be consignment sales, temporary allowances or other price support where the amount of support is tied to the pump price. This Bill would allow the type of Gravenhurst situation to continue.
There is nothing in this Bill to address restrictive covenants restricting the use of property for the sale of motor fuels or eliminating the source of supply of motor fuels to the new owner. There is nothing there. The Director also recommended prohibiting exclusive dealing contracts between suppliers and retailers of motor fuel. There is something there, but it is not tough enough.
I could go on and on about the marketing, the refining and the retailing level. Just let me repeat, as the Minister leaves

April 9, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
the House, that her policy is a failure because she deregulated the oil industry in a market that is not a free market. That is a fundamental flaw. That is why Canadian oil prices have not gone down as quickly as American oil prices when there was this dramatic decline in world oil prices.
We have a situation in Canada, as I said, where the Minister has the worst of both worlds. The independent Canadian Alberta producer is dying. The big multinational companies will survive. The small producer is getting paid $10 a barrel for oil. Companies cannot live with that. On the other hand, although prices have come down a little bit the amount should have been double, the consumer, the motorist, is continuing to get ripped off at the pump. This Bill, I am afraid to say, will not remedy the situation.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on the hoist motion of the New Democratic Party on Bill C-91. We are very concerned that not enough work has gone into this Bill and that the work has been developed into going backwards from previous Bills on the subject. A six month hoist is a very strong suggestion that the legislation is inadequate and that one has to go back to square one in rethinking what it should be. That is what we want to convey this afternoon.
Competition reform is among the saddest experiences "in Canadian public policy". That is not just our judgment, but a judgment made by independent academics and researchers working on the subject. The study Canada's Competition Policy Revisited lays blame very clearly. It states:
This judgment is made all the more painful by the realization that, contrary to often expressed belief, the outcomemeaning this legislation-
- was not inevitable or beyond the control of governments determined that it be otherwise.
We have a story here of continuing failure over a long period of time to deal with the problems in competition in Canadian business.
The Economic Council of Canada began deliberating toward a modern and an effective competition policy in 1966. It produced an interim report in 1969. The first competition Bill was tabled in 1971 as Bill C-256. There are those who think that that was the best of a rather sorry lot of competition Bills.
To date none of the studies, Bills, speeches or commitments has produced a law which would reform the situation. In fact, we have this judicially hamstrung legislation on the books. Instead of moving to make it tough and effective, we have this extremely weak, watered down version before us today.
Being asked to accept Bill C-91 as the ultimate development of competition policy is hypocrisy indeed. It is a fifth descendant of Bills, each one weaker than the one before. Bills C-256, C-42, C-13 and C-29, all have attempted to reform competition law in this country and all of them have failed. One would
have to be very ill-advised to think that Bill C-91 is going to do the trick.
To introduce this legislation, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) felt he had to pay a price. It is a trade-off that should never have been accepted. This is like asking the foxes to regulate the chicken coop. We have a Minister that let big business have what it wanted and was not prepared to give protection to consumers.
The groups that have argued with the Minister's Department over this Bill got what they wanted. Consumers did not. The groups that were successful, the big groups, the money groups that have a lot to gain by having weak competition policy and laws, are on the Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Grocery Products Manufacturing Association and the Canadian Bar Association. If these groups are satisfied, we certainly are not.
What about consultation with people who know about the subject and who care? Unfortunately, the Minister has had his Department engage in a pro forma kind of consultation. The Minister bragged in his press statement of December 17 that he has been listening not only to business interests, small and large, but to the provinces, to consumers and to organized labour.
We know something about this consultation. Organized labour was given a very perfunctory hearing and there was no follow-up as to what the Government was planning to do.
The Consumers Association of Canada was essentially told to like it or lump it. We are very concerned about the fact that business groups get the opportunity to make clause by clause representations and get their way and groups which are concerned with protecting consumers do not.
Competition reform as a priority for the Government gave way to incrementalism and stage one and stage two concepts when it was realized the Government would have to fight to implement a good policy. It was unprepared to take on this fight. It is not that it was resigned to getting half a loaf after putting up this fight, but it deliberately lowered its sights. It did not take it on. It was not prepared to fight for a better economic deal for average Canadians.
We have to look at what this misguided, ineffective policy is costing Canadian consumers at the present time. We have a highly concentrated economy with major sectors which do not have adequate competition in them. It has been estimated that the cost to Canada of this lack of competition is 7.5 per cent of Gross National Product. The 1984 estimate of Gross National Product is approximately $416.6 billion. That means that the cost of economic waste attributable to the absence of price competition in Canada is $31.4 billion and rising yearly. This is the cost that consumers pay for not having competitive prices.
April 9, 1986

There are further costs to the economy which everyone pays for having a sluggish economy. Highly sheltered markets mean a sluggish economy which is slow to adapt. These uncompetitive markets also breed persistent and powerful private attempts at manipulation of the political process to sustain the economic status quo. Thus, New Brunswick is dominated by the Irving family, Newfoundland is dominated by Water Street merchants, and the western provinces were formerly dominated by the CPR. Throughout the country a very small number of large corporations have an inordinate sway in economic decision-making. The public pays the price through higher costs.
Over the years the Liberals have been involved in introducing better competition Bills and then not following through with them. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have ever articulated a clear philosophy of competition or a real commitment to its vigorous enforcement. However, in the time of Liberal Governments we had somewhat stronger Bills from which they backed off. The present Conservative Government is not even attempting to come up with something tough to begin with.
I would like to discuss some of the particular provisions in Bill C-91 and indicate what is wrong with them and what enforcement practices to date should suggest to us that we need. The sad fact of the matter is that there is very little enforcement. The loopholes in the current legislation are so enormous that there are very few successful prosecutions in the area of competition.
In the case of illegal mergers there has been one successful prosecution. There has been one successful prosecution with regard to monopoly of a market. Independent academic researchers consider price discrimination to be unenforceable except under the most extreme conditions. The legislation with regard to conspiracy to fix prices and share markets is regarded as weak but workable, but of limited use because of continuing court decisions of a very weak nature. With regard to misleading advertising and resale price maintenance, only the recent sections dating from 1951 and 1969 respectively appear to be fairly effective. Therefore, the majority of the enforcement mechanisms are extremely weak. After a very long period of time these laws are still not being enforced.
This is a record of futility. Of six major sections of the law, two are almost absolute failures. One is mostly unenforceable, one is extremely weak, and two appear to work. That is not a very good record, and Bill C-91 will do nothing to correct that unhappy record of failure. Even with a mixed tribunal and civil law procedures, there is little optimism that this Bill will deal with anticompetitive offences better than the previous law did.
Let us consider once again the specifics. To win a monopoly or abuse of dominant position case, the Director of Investigation and Research must now meet the following tests: substantial control of a market in a persistent manner, anticompetitive acts resulting in less competition, and practice which will lessen or prevent competition substantially. 1 emphasize the word "substantially".
Competition Tribunal Act
It is extremely difficult to meet all the parts of this test. The built-in defence that superior competitive performance brought these results leads the people who study this field to believe that there is little chance of the director of investigation actually winning a case. Section 51 of the Bill should be rigorously examined to ascertain whether its weakness means that it will just become another inoperative section of the law.
There are the same types of difficulties with regard to mergers. The Director of Investigation and Research will have to demonstrate a substantial lessening of competition. Another built-in defence of the merger bringing gains and efficiency could result in no conviction. However, there is a far worse defect in the mergers section in that it does not cover conglomerate mergers. That is surely one area which should give rise to a great deal of concern. Much has been said about conglomerate mergers, and people are concerned. Yet, this Bill is silent on this fact of life.
With regard to conspiracy, price-fixing, market-sharing, and restricting entry to competitors are at the heart of any competition law and Canada's law in this area has become less effective in recent years. It has been shown, for example, that prior to 1976 the Crown won close to 90 per cent of all conspiracy cases. Since that time, the Crown has only won 55 per cent. Yet, Bill C-91 does not really change the provisions in this area.
In conclusion, this is a very inadequate piece of legislation. There has been better legislation in the past which was not passed. This is surely the time to give Canadian consumers the decent and adequate protection which they deserve. The cost to the economy of any such competition should not be borne by consumers. Let us put this Bill on the back-burner for six months, have a proper study, and produce tough legislation which will give Canadian consumers the deal they deserve and ensure that we have a well-functioning economy.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hoist motion moved by one of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. If that motion were passed this Bill would not be debated in the House for the next six months, which would give the Government the opportunity to redraft this legislation. That would allay a lot of the concerns which I and others who have spoken in this debate have expressed since this Bill was introduced on Monday.
It is clear that this legislation will not go the route. It will not do what it is supposed to do. It will not create effective competition in the country or stop the increased concentration of ownership which exists. No one has refuted the fact that big business wrote this legislation. The active role of the Manufacturers Association and others in writing this legislation indicates the problem which exists with it. The legislation was written by the very people from which the legislation is supposed to be protecting the public.
Our competition legislation will not halt the increased control of our economy by a small number of families. It will do nothing to prevent the situation occurring at the present

April 9, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
time in which the oil companies, through their refineries, have a way of restricting supply to the independent operators. This legislation will do nothing to prevent the price gouging which has occurred in the past. It will do nothing to protect the rights of the public effectively.
When I spoke on this legislation earlier in the week I talked about what was happening in society. I indicated that ownership is falling into the hands of fewer and fewer people and that it is of major concern when financial institutions are bought by non-financial institutions. When those non-financial institutions borrow from their subsidiaries, the rights and interests of the depositor and small investor are not protected. The bank inquiry made it apparent that that was one of the problems which resulted in the closure of the two major banks in western Canada last fall. Here we have a situation where that danger is going to return and the legislation in front of us will do nothing to prevent that,
Very few Conservatives have spoken on this legislation, but some of those who have, have said that ownership is not the question. It is not a matter of who owns a financial institution, it is a matter of Government regulation and enforcement which will protect the small investor or someone with deposits in a financial institution. The inquiry which is going on right now into the bank failures shows that our regulations have not been effective in preventing those bank failures. They were not effective in preventing some self-dealing between the Commercial Bank, the Northland Bank and some of their principles. In addition, the enforcement of these regulations was hampered by the fact that the present Conservative Government and the previous Liberal Government would not provide the Inspector General of Banks with the staff he requested in order to enforce the existing regulations. In other words, the Government was unwilling to provide the staff to the Inspector Genera! of Banks which could have prevented the closure of those banks through proper enforcement of the regulations. Therefore, we have to be concerned when we have legislation which is as weak as this is, knowing that regulation has not worked in the past and that the Government has not provided the financial resources to see that the regulations are enforced.
There is another problem which exists as a result of the fact that we have more and more concentrated ownership in our country. It is not just that decision-making is in the hands of a limited few, it is that effective management disappears when ownership is taken from those who have some knowledge and experience of the industry involved and deposited with those who are best at stock market and tax loophole manipulation in order to gain control of a corporation. For example, MacMillan Bloedel is no longer managed by people with knowledge of the lumber industry. Noranda, which is facing an economic crisis, is no longer effectively managed by people who have knowledge about that company's industry. The real control rests in the hands of a bunch of people who are out to increase the power of their holding company. Therefore, for any number of reasons, this is bad legislation.
As well, this Bill illustrates how Parliament does not always work properly. The Liberals have said they are in favour of competition legislation. The Conservatives have said they are in favour of competition legislation. Yet we still have weak legislation in front of us. When the Liberals were in power there were five different attempts to pass competition legislation and only one succeeded. That one resulted in weak legislation. The Conservatives have now introduced another piece of weak legislation. If all three Parties in this House are in favour of strong competition legislation, why do we not have it? Why, after 15 years of trying, have we not provided the legislation which all three Parties say they are in favour of? The answer is either that the Parties are not sincere, or that the power of those affected is so enormous that the Government of the day, whether it be Liberal or Conservative, is unwilling to take the political risk, to demonstrate the political will, to provide the legislation it says it is in favour of.
It reminds me of how the Parties stand on political rights for public servants. In the last election campaign the Conservatives indicated they were in favour of those rights. The Liberals have indicated they are in favour of those rights. However, when either of those Parties is in Government, it will not legislate those rights. So we have a situation where Parties campaign on platforms and policies which they will not effectively implement when they become the Government. The Conservative Government campaigned on political rights for public servants. It has been in power for almost two years now and nothing has happened. The Conservative Party campaigned in favour of effective competition legislation. Again, we are not getting effective competition legislation,
I realize that my time is almost up but I want to say one more thing. The credibility of this House under parliamentary reform has to be based on whether or not the government back-benchers actually have the guts to get up and say that something is wrong when their Government presents it. On Monday night all three Parties in the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs called upon the Government to do something to prevent the takeover of Genstar. We are now in danger of passing legislation which will do absolutely nothing to prevent that takeover. If all three Parties agreed on Monday night that that is what should be done, then we should be passing legislation which would prevent such takeovers.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a subject which has been of concern to Canadians for many, many years. There have been innumerable efforts, supposedly, to bring in legislation which would help protect the interests of ordinary Canadians. Unfortunately, the legislation which we have had up until now has been almost a complete failure. Let me quote what two well-known competition analysts, William Stanbury, a professor at the University of British Columbia, and Gill Reschenthaler said about our competition track record:
The Canadian anticombines legislation is quite properly viewed by practitioners and academics-in Canada and abroad - as relatively weak. Recent decisions have further weakened the law.
April 9, 1986

The lack of sensitivity to the non-economic arguments for antitrust enforcement and the concomitant absence of a fundamental distrust of economic power concentrations account, in large measure, for legislation which is largely behavioural in orientation and which relied exclusively on the criminal law until 1976.
Professor Irving Brecher of McGill University has written, quite correctly, that the reason we have such weak laws is that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have been prepared to take on the tremendously powerful business and financial interests which really do not want tough anticombines legislation because it would interfere with the way in which they do business.
Over the last few days of debate I was particularly interested to hear Liberal Members of Parliament criticize this legislation as inadequate. After all, they were in power for more than 50 of the last 65 years and they had innumerable opportunities to bring in legislation but they did not do it. I was also interested to hear them attack the present Government because it has not, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) just indicated, adopted the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs that the takeover of Genstar by Imasco be stopped. Why do Members of Parliament from all Parties want that stopped? They realize that a company like Imasco, which is in the manufacturing business, the service industry, the retail business, could use the financial clout in the Genstar ownership of Canada Trust for its own purposes, which might very well be contrary to the interests of the Canadian consumer. That is a very valid argument.
I find it strange that the Liberals have suddenly learned that lesson. Just six years ago when the Liberals formed the Government the same thing took place which they are opposing in the takeover of Genstar by Imasco. Six years ago Brascan, which owns Noranda, a large mining corporation which owns McMillan Bloedel, one of the largest lumber, pulp and paper corporations in Canada, formed Trilon. Trilon is precisely the same kind of company as Genstar which owns Canada Trust. Trilon, which started six years ago while the Liberals were in power, owns Noranda and McMillan Bloedel and many other companies. Trilon took over the London Life Insurance Company and then it secured control of the Royal Trust Company. The Royal Trust Company took over A.E. Lepage, which is a property and real estate company, and then it took over Wellington Insurance. It is into the trust and financial services business, the insurance business, the corporate financial business, the investment business, the trust business, the money market operations and bond trading business, the loan and investment business and the leasing business.
While the Liberals were in power, Brascan did precisely what the Liberals are now opposing in the takeover of Genstar by Imasco. What we see, as we have seen so many times over the years, is how progressive and people-oriented the Liberal Party and the Liberal Members can be when they are in the
Competition Tribunal Act
Opposition and how, as soon as they win an election and form the Government, they immediately show their true colours because their concern for people disappears. What we see is their real concern and their real support of the financial and business corporations which use their power to fleece the ordinary Canadian.
Let us just look at what has happened over the years. If we review the major aspect of the competition law we have, we see how barren the record of success has been. When former Governments acted against illegal mergers, there was one successful prosecution. When they acted because they believed there was price discrimination, it was regarded as unenforceable except under the most extreme conditions. When they looked at conspiracy to fix prices and share markets, we find that the law was regarded as weak but workable, and of limited use because of continuing court decisions.
When we look at the record with regard to misleading advertising and resale maintenance, we find that only these recent sections dating from 1951 and 1969 legislation respectively appear to be fairly effective, according to Professors Stanbury and Reschenthaler. We see a record of futility. Of six major sections of the law two are almost completely failures, one is mostly unenforceable, one is extremely weak and two appear to work. For futility, that takes some beating.
The Conservatives are going to try to beat that record with the legislation we are dealing with now. There is no need to wonder why competition reform is required. Another consensus position, except for big business, is that the courts are not the place where competition cases should be heard. The Minister has not been quite successful in convincing businesses of this requirement. The result is we have this proposal for a high bid competition tribunal.
What about these remedies? Even with a mixed tribunal and civil law procedures there is little optimism among those who have studied the record-and 1 am talking about the academics to whom the Minister really did not want to listen-this Bill will deal with anti-competitive offences more effectively than the previous law. Here is an assessment of the major enforcement sections of this Bill made by, as I said, some very competent, knowledgeable academics who spent years studying this.
Dealing with the question of monopoly or abuse of a dominant position, they say that to win a monopoly case the Director of Investigation and Research now has to meet a number of tests, first of all, to prove that there was substantial control of a market in a persistent way; second, that anticompetitive acts mean less competition; and third, that the practice will lessen or prevent competition substantially.
Given the difficulties of meeting all these parts and the built-in defence that a superior competitive performance brought these results means to many people who study this Bill that there is little chance of the Director winning a case. When we look at the question of mergers of the kind we have had in the past where a steel company took over a smaller steel

April 9, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
company or a paper company took over a smaller paper company, they are unlike the most recent mergers, the large mergers we have seen by conglomerates. That is really not dealt with by this proposed Act at all.
For these reasons and many others we intend to oppose this Bill. 1 can assure Members of the House that we will have a substantial number of amendments when this Bill goes to committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is as follows. Mr. Cote (Langelier), seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn moves that Bill C-91, an Act to establish the Competition Tribunal and to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. McCurdy:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-91. an Act to establish the Competition Tribunal and to amend the
Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence
thereof be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this
day six months hence.
The question will therefore be on the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
Shall I proceed with the main question?


Iain Francis Angus: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan (Mr. Angus) rising on a point of order?


Iain Francis Angus: No, Mr. Speaker, on debate.


David Orlikow: Six o'clock.
April 9, 1986

Competition Tribunal Act


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands The House adjourned at 6.02 p.m. adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).

Thursday, April 10, 1986