1989-04-19

Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute today to a top athlete of whom all my constituents in Montmorency-Orleans are particularly proud. In the famous Boston Marathon, which was run for the ninety-third time on Monday, April 17, Odette Lapierre of Beauport came in eighth among all female competitors and first among Canadian women.
Ms. Lapierre's performance is even more remarkable in that she could not train during the winter because of a leg injury. That did not prevent her from beating the gold medal winner at the Los Angeles Games, American Jean Benoit-Samuelson, to the finish line, with a time of 2:35:50.
I therefore call on my colleagues in the House of Commons to pay close attention to this courageous athlete who will represent Canada at the next Commonwealth Games in New Zealand next January.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


SMALL BUSINESS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: The
most important job of a Member of Parliament is to stand up and defend the rights of small individuals or
businesses in this country who are treated with indifference by Government.
I would like to bring to the attention of this House the plight of Cynthia and Fred Brick, who own a very good furniture store that has been operating in the Province of Manitoba for the last 19 years. Because of the inadequacy of the Copyright and Trade Marks Acts, they are threatened with being put out of business by a large national franchise firm. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Valcourt) refuses to do anything about it.
The family has already spent $80,000 on legal fees in the fight against this case. The Minister, when he was responsible for small business, lent his support but now refuses to do anything.
I ask the Minister, and I plead with other Members to support it, that when the matter comes before the Advisory Committee on Trademarks and Copyrights, the Bricks will be allowed to appear before the committee, present their case, and have the Minister take immediate action, so that this very fine family and their firm can continue to operate in the Province of Manitoba.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham):: Mr. Speaker, Jeffrey Simpson, of The Globe and Mail was "right on" in his recent remarks about the Government's new refugee determination system, when he said:
At last, Canada has a refugee-determination system that is fair and efficient. Now the task is to carry on with the new policy without listening to the criticisms from a few immigration lawyers in Tbronto.
Many of my constituents in Markam and Whitchurch-Stouffville have been very upset at the serious abuses and queue jumping which have made a mockery of our refugee system over the past few years.
The new system is indeed working. As Jeffrey Simpson said:
The word is obviously spreading that Canada, while still appropriately eager to accept genuine refugees, is no longer a pushover for economic refugees and other bogus claimants.


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
April 19, 1989

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall)-absent her fashion cigar-admonished the Member for Nickle Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), to stop complaining and to help his community take advantage of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, so that his people can get into higher paying jobs where they will be better off. How hypocritical, and how completely asinine are the policies of this Government. As the Minister spoke, the Government was cutting 13 training courses at St. Clair College in Windsor. All were heavily subscribed, half had 100 per cent placement. One hundred people destined for those higher paying jobs promised by the Minister will have their hopes dashed. Thus this Government, which claims the flag of competitiveness and a better trained and educated workforce, shows that it is nothing but rhetoric, and strikes another blow at a community college system already critically bled by Tory leeches.


MEECH LAKE AGREEMENT
Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, although eight out of ten provinces have already approved the Meech Lake Accord, there are prophets of doom in the House and in the country who are again raising the spectre of disunity. Blinded by irrational and illogical thinking, they are unable to recognize Quebec's cultural and linguistic uniqueness which make it a distinct society. It is nevertheless the crowning glory that gives Canada its beauty.
Mr. Speaker, in the 1981 (sic) referendum, Quebec said yes to Canada and its continued membership in this voluntary democratic union can only be based on the absolute recognition of its distinct character by its Canadian partner.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in Ahuntsic,
I say to all those who want to turn back the clock: Canada will be even greater by accepting Quebec as a distinct society.


TAX REFORM
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter that the Government may choose to forget but one that all Canadians are being reminded of. I am referring to tax reform and the many surprises Canadians, particularly seniors, find in store for them as they fill out their 1988 tax returns.
An area of major concern is the handling of medical expenses, and the impact of converting from tax deductions to the 17 per cent tax credit.
For an individual with high medical expenses, such as a senior citizen requiring substantial care, the additional tax payable caused by this measure is in the thousands of dollars. In Ontario, an individual with $30,000 in medical expenses would pay an additional $5,400.
Why did the Government use a 17 per cent tax credit for medical expenses rather than the 29 per cent used for charitable donations? Why is it socking it to seniors once again?
I call on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to rectify this dreadful situation.


RED MEAT-ALLEGED MISINFORMATION ISSUED BY CBC
Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday morning I awoke to an unbelievable newscast from the CBC. It said that every year two million Canadians become sick and hundreds die from eating red meat.
The numbers came from a study of illnesses from food poisoning, and had been adjusted by a factor of 350 because of the assumption that many such cases are not recognized as food poisoning and are not reported.
As a veterinarian, my knowledge of the quality of red meat produced in Canada made me realize immediately that the newscast was in error. But would the average consumer know this? No. He or she would not. The consumer should know that the red meat produced in Canada is of excellent quality, but the improper handling of meat or any food product can lead to bacterial build up and food poisoning.
April 19, 1989

What a shame that once again the Canadian food industry and Canadian farmers were victimized by a sensational headline.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, we read with remorse about the worsening conditions of countries in the Middle East. The wars rage on and leave in their path the destruction of both property and life.
The people of Lebanon are under siege by the army of Syria and the lives of innocent men, women and children are sacrificed daily. Schools, hospitals and factories are being bombed indiscriminately.
In my riding of Essex-Kent, and the immediate surrounding area, some 15,000 Lebanese descendants fear for the lives of their friends and relatives in their homeland. These are lives that need not be wasted by the ravages of war.
I ask the Government to be steadfast in its commitment for peace and to voice that commitment to the United Nations. I ask the Government to take immediate measures to improve the immigration practices and to help with the transportation of those in need, and to assist innocent victims in being taken safely out of the areas of danger.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister responsible for unemployment insurance attempts to rationalize cutting benefits and privatizing training programs, I want to cite an incident in my riding that illustrates one of the fundamental problems for working people in rural areas.
A constituent of mine lives outside town. She has no car and there is no public transportation. She works fairly regularly and has been able to hitch-hike to work.
However, when she experiences a periodic lay-off and wants to look for work, she is told that she is not eligible for unemployment insurance because she does not have adequate transportation. That is obviously an assumption in policy created by someone with no understanding of rural life.
A similar instance is that of farmers who have been asked to leave farms in order to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits.
I call on the Minister to ensure that there is regional consultation in the unemployment insurance policy development and that rural Canadians are considered an important part of the workforce, as they are. It is time for the Government to understand the real needs of all Canadians.


CANADA POST
Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce -Grey):: Mr. Speaker, the village of Neustadt in my riding of Bruce-Grey has had a post office for 120 years, and it is now in danger of losing it.
Neustadt is a municipality on the move. It is undergoing a dramatic transformation from a farm village to a crafts and tourist village, which has increased business and tourist use of the post office facilities. It is also the birthplace of the Rt. Hon. John George Diefenbaker, former Prime Minister of Canada. The home where he was bom is being restored, which has generated and attracted a great deal of attention from all across Canada.
With the increased business being generated for the post office in Neustadt, Canada Post should allow its post office every opportunity to become a profit-generating enterprise and continue to be part of the lifestyle of its citizens.
I call on the Minister who speaks for Canada Post in the House, and I also call on Canada Post itself, to continue the Neustadt post office as a full-time, full-service post office.

April 19, 1989
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Tinner@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I want to know if all the economic and regional development agreements with Newfoundland which expired on March 31 this year will be renewed. I particularly want to know why the Government of Canada is engaging in an unfair game of economic treachery with the poorest province in our country, the people of Newfoundland. Why have the regional development agreements not been renewed? Why is that arrogant Government making the people of Newfoundland pay to reduce a deficit for which they are not responsible? I ask that of the Prime Minister.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, if I may reply to the right hon. gentleman, I would remind him that what his statement represents is absolute balderdash. This Government has in the past demonstrated a tremendous commitment to regional and economic development. At the present time in Newfoundland there are many economic co-operation agreements still in effect. For example, we have agreements involving ocean industries, highways, harbour resources, livestock, agri-products and so on.
The fact that some of these agreements have recently been mentioned, a couple of weeks ago, indicates that the process is still alive and well in Newfoundland.


Mr.   Timer@Vancouver Quadra: The Minister for International Trade sat through that response very uncomfortably. I can understand that. I doubt very much if he will retain his patience as this exchange continues.


EXPIRY OF AGREEMENTS
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are used to the kind of deception just practised by the Minister. They want to know about the $22 million mineral development agreement with Newfoundland which expired on March 31. Will it be renewed? The $21 million tourist development agreement with Newfoundland expired on March 31. Will it be renewed? The $28 million Burin Peninsula agreement expired on March 31. Will it be renewed? The $52 million pulp and paper
agreement with Newfoundland expired on March 31. Will it be renewed? If not, why not? Will the Minister please reply?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it is transparently obvious why the Leader of the Opposition has worked himself up into this semi-righteous mode of indignation today. One can easily understand his new-found interest in Newfoundland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It will be interesting to see if his enthusiasm continues later in the week.
This Government has nothing to apologize for in terms of its commitment to regional development. As the Prime Minister indicated, we have practically doubled our commitment to regional development in all of Atlantic Canada. As the Prime Minister indicated today, there are absolutely silly reports that the federal Government plans to slash regional development funding to harmonize with U.S. programs and so on. That is an absolute lie which has been put out. This Government has a continuing commitment to regional development in Atlantic Canada.


Mr.   Dimer@Vancouver Quadra: The Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade used almost the same vocabulary during the election about unemployment insurance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: If anyone is going to be indignant tomorrow, it will be the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They will have something to say about it.


ASSURANCES REQUESTED THAT AGREEMENTS WILL BE RENEWED
John Napier Turner: During the very course of this election, this Government in Ottawa sold out Newfoundland fish to France. It cut unemployment insurance, it stalled on Hibernia and now it has refused to say whether or not those agreements will be renewed. I ask the Minister to answer that.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question there but it gives me an opportunity to reply to the hon. gentlemen and remind him that this Government has done more to assist Newfoundland than any other government in history.
April 19, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Despite the Government's cynical manoeuvre of delaying the federal Budget until after tomorrow's election in Newfoundland, Newfoundlanders and all Canadians now know that they will be the victims in the Government's deficit-cutting mania. If the Government is not planning to make the drastic cuts to regional programs suggested in today's St. John's The Evening Telegram-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member would want to put his question.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if the Government is not planning to make the drastic cuts to regional programs, will he assure the House and the people of Newfoundland before they vote that regional development programs for Newfoundlanders will not be cut?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have already read a list of some of the agreements-


John Napier Turner: Didn't take you long. It is pretty short, isn't it?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Well, it is longer than yours.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I applaud the interest in regional development of my colleagues opposite. I can understand why they have that interest. However, they should recognize and be fair about the fact that this Government has given more assistance of a better type and quality than any other Government in history, and they will have to wait for a few more days, as will people who are interested in other areas of Government, the proper way to do this under the budgetary process, to get all the answers they want.
Oral Questions


ASSURANCE REQUESTED THAT NO CUTS WILL BE MADE
Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, in The Evening Telegram article, the spokesman for the Government estimates that the budget for the Industry Department will be slashed, leaving only $250 million in discretionary funding, from a $1.3 billion annual budget for regional development programs. Is the Prime Minister prepared to deny these revelations and confirm to Atlantic Canadians that spending on regional development programs will not be slashed in next week's Budget?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should realize that it does not do much good to read reconstituted articles from The Toronto Star, even if they are reprinted in Newfoundland or in any of these, as we would say, upper Canadian papers that are speculating.


Mr. Crosbie:: Where are your Newfoundland Members? All five of them have disappeared. Where have they gone?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The Hon. Member will realize that the commitment-Mr. Speaker, I don't believe they want to hear the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister's colleague seems to have gotten into this question period. The Hon. Minister may want to respond.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, all I can tell my colleagues opposite is that this particular effort for this current year in regional development assistance is the most comprehensive of any year yet. They will have to wait until after the Budget is brought down and they can ask their questions then.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the Minister will know, until April 1 of this year, the Government had in place an educational program for the aboriginal community at the post-secondary level that was at least working and acceptable. Then the Government of Canada unilaterally imposed changes to it.

April 19, 1989
Oral Questions
The Minister met with young students as well as other aboriginal leaders yesterday to discuss the situation. The consequence of the meeting was that the Minister told them that this program would still be put in place on September 1 and yet he contended that he was willing to have discussions.
Since the Minister's new program has been universally rejected by the aboriginal community, why does he not accept their reasonable position to hold off implementation of that program for the coming year and in the meantime, have discussions that will hopefully lead to an agreement between the aboriginal community and the Government of Canada? Surely that is reasonable.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated on a number of occasions already, a year ago my predecessor announced that there would be a review of the E-12 guidelines that were in force at that time. There was a discussion paper circulated throughout Canada on this particular subject. There was a consultation process that was supposed to take place from July until October and was extended until December. Following the recommendations we received through that consultation process, important changes were brought to the discussion paper, as indicated in the policy that I announced on March 20, which came into force on April 1, but in fact will apply as of September 1 for school year 1989-90.
Notwithstanding that, I am prepared, as I have indicated from the outset, to sit down again with the leaders and chiefs of the native people and the students, if they wish, in order to review the possibility. Particularly, if there are inequities, we will look into them. However, over-all, the new guidelines are more generous, better and fairer than the ones that were in force at that time. If Hon. Members would look at the First Nations' document on education, they would find that it indicates that E-12 is inadequate and inappropriate.


REQUEST THAT NEW GUIDELINES BE SUSPENDED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the aboriginal community had suggestions and criticisms to make about the old program, but as he also knows, by and large it was working and was acceptable to the aboriginal community. He knows as well that the new guidelines he is now talking about have been universally rejected from the West Coast of Canada right through to the East Coast by the aboriginal people.
Just for once, why will he not listen to them instead of his advisers here in Ottawa? That surely is the issue.
I appeal to the Minister, who has been reasonable in past portfolios and who has considered the constituency he is supposed to represent in Cabinet. Since the aboriginal people of all people in Canada at long last deserve justice, why will he not keep in place the existing program, suspend his new guidelines and hopefully negotiate a program that is acceptable to everyone?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, again, as I have indicated, the First Nations themselves found that the E-12 guidelines, the old guidelines, were inadequate and inappropriate. We have a program here that we feel is more generous and fairer for all native students across Canada. We are talking about a program that went from $4.2 million at its start in 1975 to $130 million today, for 15,000 students, representing an average of close to $9,000 annually for each student. It covers tuition fees, books, accessories, travel assistance and allowance for cost of living including food and day care.
I believe that these new guidelines are better than the ones that were there before. I have already met with the leadership four times in the last two weeks and I am prepared to continue the process. If there is more that we can do, we will do it.


REJECTION OF NEW GUIDELINES BY ABORIGINAL LEADERSHIP
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows full well that the guidelines may be acceptable to him, but without exception, the aboriginal leadership from coast to coast has rejected the guidelines. Surely among those people who have rejected it are a great number of reasonable human beings, and they are the people affected by these guidelines. The Minister should be listening to them.
Since the Minister has now said to all of us in the House something about what has happened in terms of spending for aboriginal peoples, I would like to read to him and ask him for his response on an observation made last week, not ten years ago, by a Canadian Human Rights Commissioner who said: "An Indian youngster in Canada has a better chance of being sent to prison than of completing university". That is a national disgrace. In this context, why is the Minister even contemplating putting a ceiling on post-secondary educational spending? Is it not better to spend money on education than on welfare for aboriginal people?
April 19, 1989


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that obviously I agree with the quote the Hon. Member has just given us, and I took good note of it last week when it was given by Commissioner Yalden. That notwithstanding, this budget has increased 30 times since its inception. We are now giving an average of $9,000 per year per student.
If I can sit with the leaders and the students, obtain the appropriate data, as they are reasonable and I am reasonable, I will be asking for more if the need increases over the years.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Over the last few weeks in the House we have repeatedly heard the Minister tell us that he has met with the chiefs and the leaders of the native peoples. He has stated that he has listened, but obviously he has not. If the Minister had been out there today, as I was, to listen to the leaders of the native people, he would have found out that those individuals are not pleased with his policy.
Based on that fact, would the Minister today, instead of saying he is meeting and not listening, change the deadline to April 1, 1990, in order to give the First Nations the time needed to collect data and develop a policy which will be of benefit to the native peoples and to the Government.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, since I have been in all those meetings, I can assure my hon. friend that I have been listening very carefully. If the Hon. Member had been listening very carefully, he would know that, on average, we are giving out $9,000 per year per person in total grants in this particular program today.
Oral Questions
As I have indicated, there has been a consultation program from July until December. We still have five months until September 1 in order to review the policy as it is. I am prepared to do that. I am prepared to listen, and I was prepared to listen yesterday when the natives walked out on me during that meeting.


EFFECT ON WELFARE ROLLS
Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Based on the fact that $316 million were spent last year on welfare for native peoples, and because of this new policy, the estimate is that that will go up to $400 million in the upcoming year, as a result of this policy, can the Minister tell us how many more native people will be unemployed, how many more of them will turn to drugs and alcohol abuse, and how much will this affect the deficit in the years to come?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, this policy has gone from $4.2 million to $130 million over the years. I think that is an indication that certainly this Government in particular believes in post-secondary education.
We also believe in graduating from post-secondary education, and fulfilling the goals of the First Nations, which is self-government and self-sufficiency.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last week the Minister of Employment announced that she will take $800 million out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and thereby reduce the coverage for unemployed workers with that unemployment insurance program.
Over the weekend, Conservative Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia said that such a move by the federal Government would simply shift the burden for unemployed workers from the unemployment insurance program to provincial welfare rolls, a consequence which most provinces cannot afford.
When does the Prime Minister intend to meet with the provincial premiers with respect to this matter? Will he be ready to offer them additional moneys to take care of the additional unemployed who will have to be taken of under welfare programs?

April 19, 1989
Oral Questions


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, very shortly I will be meeting with my provincial counterparts. We will be discussing the new program and the benefits that it has for the provinces. I would remind the Hon. Member of the additional funding that we have put into this program for social assistance recipients. It has been a very successful program that was introduced by the Government, and it is going to be expanded from $600 million to $800 million, if we get the full funding on the provincial side.
There will not be an increase in the welfare rolls as a result of this program.


ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCES
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia states that there will be an increase in the welfare rolls as as result of this program. One cannot take $800 million out of unemployment insurance without cutting the coverage, and that is what the Minister is doing.
We are not opposed to putting people back to work. We are opposed to cutting programs which take away the right of people to pay for their food and rent.
I want to ask the Government, especially the Prime Minister because he is responsible for over-all policy, how are the provinces going to pay for this additional welfare? Will the Prime Minister offer additional moneys to the provinces to take up the burden that he is shifting to them?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is totally ignoring the fact that the social assistance recipient program that we have funded in the past has taken people off the welfare rolls. There are fewer people living in poverty today than there were when this Government took office, there is more training for people today, and there are more jobs for people today.
Let me remind the Hon. Member of what the parliamentary committee, of which the Hon. Member was a member, has stated.


William Warren Allmand: Thlk to the Premier of Nova Scotia about it, Barbara.


Barbara Jean McDougall: It stated "That Section 39 (Training) of the Unemployment Insurance Act be amended and alternate provisions be made to more clearly assist claimants to use their benefits to develop suitable skills". "Unemployment insurance can be more than just earnings replacement while unemployed. It should be a vehicle to help people realize better and more stable employment opportunities in the future".
That is exactly what the Hon. Member signed, Mr. Speaker.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, today members of the Government have stated that the stories about regional development cuts are false. They stated that the regional development help is more comprehensive than that from any Government in the past.
If this is so, why has the Government frozen almost $1 billion-worth of renegotiations of economic and regional development agreements with provinces from the East Coast to the West Coast to the Arctic?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech there are comments indicating the commitment of the Government to regional development as evidenced by the Western Economic Development Office, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the expansion and continuation of regional development programs of FED-NOR and the Quebec programs through my Department.
In the Prime Minister's comments during the Throne Speech debate he again indicated the Government's commitment to co-operative regional development efforts.
The statements made by the Government are there. They stand on their own. I do not know why the Hon. Member won't take them as given.


Steven W. Langdon: Because, Mr. Speaker, I have been here for the last four years and I have seen statements like that turned upside down by the Government within months.


REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION OF NEGOTIATIONS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same Minister. Why is the Government not continuing negotiations on the science and technology projects connected with the general agreement signed with Quebec last year? Why?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, we are. The Hon. Member shakes his head. I do not know what he is talking about or what he is alluding to.
The fact of the matter is that our discussions with the Quebec Government were left to an entente last year. There are some things that the Quebec Government needs to get back to us about, but it is not complaining about any lack of progress. I do not know why the Hon. Member is.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As a result of the recently announced changes to the UI program there will be some 30,000 fish plant workers, most of them women, who will have to find additional employment if these proposed changes go through. In Newfoundland, fish plant workers receive benefits. With the minimum requirements across Canada going up, where will these workers find the extra work to qualify? Can the Minister assure this House that Atlantic Canadians will not be tossed on to the welfare rolls?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this Government has the best job creation record in Atlantic Canada of any Government in the history of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Let me just remind the Hon. Member that there is $15 million more going into Newfound-
Oral Questions
land as a result of this program. There is $15 million more for Newfoundland next year.
Let me just read from The Gander Beacon in Newfoundland:
- 18 trainees from the Gander-Fogo-Lewisporte area graduated from a six-month federally funded training program.
The program, run by the Newfoundland Career Academy, trained 18 young people to enter the work-force in banking, clerical and retail positions.
The local administrator said:
All of us involved with the program are happy with the results.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF REVIEW
George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, continuing with the fishermen, the Minister of Employment and Immigration confirmed on April 11 that there would be a review of the unemployment insurance scheme for fishermen.
Many of these fishermen are unaware of this review and what it could entail. They are concerned about how they will be affected. Will the Minister explain to all Canadian fishermen what this review will consist of, when it will take place and when we can expect a report.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the fact that I am being royally misquoted and simply say that there is no contemplation of any changes for fishermen under this program.


HOUSING
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Housing). The Minister is of course aware that members of the Canadian Real Estate Association are here in Ottawa, and that they are concerned about the fact that the Government might impose a national sales tax on the housing sector. The Minister may have said recently, on more than one occasion, that the new national sales tax would not increase the cost of housing, but he obviously has not convinced the sectors concerned.


An Hon. Member:: He is reading!

April 19, 1989
Oral Questions


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Yes, and quite well too.
Will the Minister give the House the assurance today that this new sales tax will not apply to new homes, homes up for resale and rental accommodation?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, real estate industry builders, salesmen, and all members of the real estate industry have been making submissions with respect to the national sales tax for some time. It is of great concern to all of the industry and it is certainly of great concern to me and the Government. I know the Minister of Finance is taking all of these representations into close and careful consideration.
As the Hon. Member is aware, the Minister made a statement in November with respect to the imposition of the tax and the question of affordability. I am sure that that undertaking will continue to stand.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is backing off from very clear statements of protection for affordable housing that he made on a number of occasions prior to the election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TAX REFORM-MINISTER'S POSITION
Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is a chronic shortage of housing in this country. Canadians cannot afford shelter. Shelter is in jeopardy and thousands of Canadians will lose any possibility of owning a home if this sales tax goes through. This Minister and the Minister of Finance stated that there will be no negative impact on affordable housing from sales tax reform.
Will the Minister of Finance be more forthcoming than the Minister of Housing? Will he explain how the price of housing will not go up if the sales tax is imposed? Will he also tell us whether this sales tax will be imposed on mortgages, insurance on mortgages, materials that go into new housing and on real estate and legal fees? In other words, will he tell us that the cost of housing will not go up because of this hidden tax?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is great to see the Hon. Member in full flight.
I know that that will be put to good use in the months to come.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member has asked a serious question. I have made clear statements in the past as to the impact of the new sales tax on the affordability of housing. I stand by those statements. They are there in print for the Hon. Member to see if he cares to look at them. The Hon. Member is asking some very specific questions about the formulation of a tax. He knows that I cannot be any more specific at this time.


REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He is aware that as Minister of Finance he allows individuals and corporations to deduct bribes, kick-backs and under-the-table payments from income tax. Yesterday the Minister of National Revenue, to his credit, said he found this practice to be offensive.
Since the Minister of Finance is responsible for tax policy in this country, does he agree with his colleague that this is, indeed, a very offensive practice, and will he put an immediate end to it?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I said that I found the interpretation of the Act offensive as outlined in a circular first presented in 1976 by the former Liberal Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: I also said that I would look into the matter. Since yesterday I have had an opportunity to review the situation personally and find that the interpretation is not only offensive but morally and ethically unacceptable. As a result, after discussions with some of my Cabinet colleagues, particularly the Minister of Finance, we have concluded that the Government will be making some legislative changes in order to allow us in Revenue Canada to change the offensive wording of the interpretation.
I am, therefore, today withdrawing this circular to begin the process of rewording it in accordance with legislative changes.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his promptness. Perhaps the Prime Minister could learn from that example.
April 19, 1989

Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COST OF TAX LOOPHOLE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker,
I have another question for the Minister of Finance. I think Canadians have a right to know how much this particular tax loophole has cost them in the last number of years.
Can the Minister give an example of the size of savings to individuals and corporations by this tax loophole that he allowed for over four years as Minister of Finance in terms of briberies and kick-backs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of National Revenue has stated very clearly that this matter came to our attention yesterday. We made a change and we announced it one day later. I think that gives the Hon. Member a very good indication of how seriously we take this question of tax loopholes, things that we find offensive. We have been doing a great deal to get them out of the tax system. As I have indicated, I appreciate the Hon. Member's support.
What the Hon. Member has asked is the tax cost. I do not believe that it is a significant amount of money because that is certainly not the way business is done in this country and there will be no value in this from the standpoint of the Tax Act in the future at all.


REINSTATEMENT OF CANADA-QUEBEC AGREEMENT ON MINERAL DEVELOPMENT-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Canada-Quebec Minerals Development Agreement has been relatively satisfactory in meeting the objectives that were set. The agreement expires in 1990.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Could the Minister inform the House whether the agreement will be renewed and whether it will include the financing of a minerals research laboratory by Canmet in Abitibi-T emiscamingue?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has taken a great interest in mining development not only in Canada, but particularly in northern Quebec. I remind him that the MDA with the Province of Quebec expires in 1990. There has been some very good technology out of that agreement, particularly in the Member's riding, with mining technology. He has been very instrumental in getting that development. I congratulate him. Obviously the representation that he has made I will take into consideration.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Today, people talk about equality for all Canadians. Although last year, almost 17 per cent of all applications for employment with the Public Service came from visible minorities, these represented less than 5 per cent of total recruitment for the Public Service. What does the Minister intend to do to end this flagrant discrimination?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the Hon. Member by quoting a number of statistics that basically apply to employment equity programs that have been established since 1985. For instance, the number of women in managerial and senior positions increased from 7.3 per cent to 10.3 per cent; the number of native people, from 1.5 per cent to 1.6 per cent; the disabled, from 1.5 per cent to 2.6 per cent. For visible minorities, the figure almost doubles, rising from 1.7 per cent to 2.7 per cent. Our policies are working. I admit that progress is slow, but as with any policy that affects Public Service employees, it takes time before improvements can be made. However, I think this is already quite a lot, over a two-year period.


NATIVE PEOPLES AND VISIBLE MINORITIES
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Minister can hide behind figures and gutless programs. The Minister knows very well the findings of the Human Rights Commission. In federal government Departments the representation of native peoples is abysmal. Women professionals make up under a quarter of the Public Service.

April 19, 1989
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Marlene Catterall: Visible minorities are negligible in the blue collar categories.


An Hon. Member:: It sounds like a speech to me.


Marlene Catterall: It is cruel and deceitful to encourage people to apply for jobs-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put her question.


Marlene Catterall: How does the Minister explain that in 1988, 12 per cent of all applicants to the Public Service were hired, but only 3.3 per cent of visible minority applicants were hired? What concrete steps will the Minister take immediately to end discrimination in hiring against visible minorities and native Canadians?


Robert René de Cotret: This Government is deeply committed to equity in employment practices. I think we have shown that, and I think the numbers have shown that. I am willing to make the commitment that we will not let up on our effort to ensure that all target populations, and I think the Hon. Member has mentioned most of the populations within the Public Service, will be well treated and well represented. The policies have been put in place to do just that.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In response to my question yesterday when I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs what this Government is doing to help the thousands of Lebanese refugees who have fled to neighbouring countries, he said:
I don't mean to shed the responsibility of Canada on to others.
But, Mr. Speaker, if he does nothing, he is shedding this Government's responsibility.
I ask the Prime Minister again, what is the Government doing to help those refugees who are no longer in Lebanon?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said yesterday that he has been in close touch with the situation in Lebanon, and we are doing what we can to assist. In response to the special appeal of the International Committee of the Red Cross, we are providing $500,000 to Lebanon. At the United Nations our own mission is consulting with the five permanent members of the Security Council to see what might be done from the vantage point of the Security Council. We would be prepared to support any proposal for a meeting of the Security Council in Lebanon if it appeared that this would be helpful. As the Secretary of State of External Affairs said yesterday, we are doing what we can to assist in this situation.


PROVISION OF CANADIAN CONSULAR SERVICES
Jesse Philip Flis: That is an excellent example, Mr. Speaker, of how this Government is not doing enough for the refugees in Lebanon. My supplementary is to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Since the fighting flared up in Lebanon last month, although thousands have fled, thousands more are trapped in the City of Beirut with no food, water or electricity. The bombing and shelling continue. What is the Prime Minister doing to provide consular services that are more accessible to the people in Lebanon? He knows he cannot ask them to travel to Damascus. Will he take the suggestions made by my colleagues from Essex-Kent and Montreal-St. Denis and open a temporary office in Cyprus and ensure safe transportation and protection for Lebanese refugees wishing to emigrate to Canada?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that the Hon. Member know that within our country we took the action on April 6 of not removing people to Lebanon. I want him to keep that in mind because I have asked my officials under our own programs to look at anything that we can extend by way of our services to these refugees in question. Also, I should point out that private agencies could help with this, and we would solicit their support in assisting refugees in Lebanon.
April 19, 1989


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will be aware, I am sure, of the judgment brought down in the provincial court of Newfoundland which acquitted four Innu protesters of the charges brought against them by the Crown. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the Government would be willing today to give a commitment not to appeal the decision of the provincial court, to drop the charges against the other protesters, to declare a moratorium on low-level flight testing and to reach the negotiated settlement with the Innu people that the judgment recommends?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the decision having been rendered by the magistrate, the matter now reverts to provincial hands because of their responsibility for the administration of justice within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. My understanding is that it is up to the Crown Attorneys in that area to act in light of the advice, I suppose, they will supply the Crown.


LOW-LEVEL MILITARY FLIGHTS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: This is an opportunity for the federal Government to show leadership. It is obvious that the case has come about as a result of a complaint lodged by the Department of National Defence. It is a Canadian Armed Forces base. It is a Canadian federal policy to have that low-level flight testing there. It is about time the Prime Minister took his responsibility in this matter and answered the questions that I asked him today in the House. Furthermore, we know that the Minister of National Defence is in Brussels at a NATO planning group. Isn't this the opportunity for the Prime Minister to tell that Minister to inform our NATO allies that the deal is off, the low-level flight testing is no longer acceptable in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks me a question with regard to the administration of justice. The implication of the second question is that we should step in and try to order the Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador to follow a given course of action. Of course that would be most improper for the administration of justice. With regard to any issues that involve NATO or low-level flights, that is an entirely different matter. It would be resolved in an entirely different forum.
Oral Questions
What is being sought, of course, is justice and fairness for the native peoples of Labrador, and economic growth and expansion for the people who need work in Labrador. That is what we are looking for.


REGISTERED RETIREMENT PENSION PLANS
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
As many Hon. Members are aware, registered savings plan funds which are invested through a life insurance company are essentially removed from any claim or demand by creditors. This is a situation made possible, I understand, by the provisions of the Insurance Act. However, RRSPs which are held or invested otherwise, such as through a trust company, are generally available to satisfy demands of creditors in a bankruptcy or similar situation.
Many Canadians feel that RRSPs are the savings plans of last resort and their security for providing retirement income should not be at risk, irrespective of other financial contingencies which may happen in our lives.
In the reform of laws dealing with bankruptcy, as set out in the Speech from the Throne, will the Minister's Department undertake to consider seriously the merits of removal of RRSP funds as vulnerable assets, much in the same manner as they are protected from creditors under the Insurance Act?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Boudria:: Say yes or no.


Bernard Valcourt: That is about all one could answer.


Don Boudria: I did not think that one could answer both.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. The question he raises is an important one. As the Government indicated in the Speech from the Throne, we will proceed with a reform of the Bankruptcy Act. We know that many previous Governments have attempted to reform the Act without success. Hopefully, in this Parliament, with the co-operation of all Members, we can reform this important law for all Canadians.

April 19, 1989
Motions
The specific issue that the Hon. Member raises is certainly one that we will consider because of its importance.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, the annual report for 1988 of the Canadian Grain Commission.
Pursuant to Standing Order 67(4), this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I request the designation of an Order of the Day to allow the presentation of a budget speech on Thursday, April 27 next.
I have a second motion which reads as follows:
That, notwithstanding any standing or special order of this House, at 5:00 o'clock p.m. on Thursday, April 27, 1989, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and proceed forthwith to the consideration of Ways and Means Proceedings No. 1, for the purpose of the budget statement of the Minister of Finance;
That, immediately following such budget statement, the House shall revert to the routine proceeding "Introduction of Government Bills" and, following introduction and first reading of a Bill or Bills, the Speaker shall recognize a member of the Official Opposition in debate on Ways and Means Proceedings No. 1; and
That the House shall not adjourn until the adjournment of the debate on Ways and Means Proceedings No. 1, following which the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a third motion which states:
That, on Friday, April 28,1989, the House shall meet at 11 o'clock a.m., with Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31 at that time, Oral Questions at 11.15 o'clock a.m., until 12 o'clock noon, followed by the Daily Routine of Business;
That, immediately upon the completion of the Daily Routine of Business, the House shall proceed to Government Orders, Ways and Means Proceedings No. 1 (the Budget motion);
That, during the debate on the Budget motion, on that day, there shall be one speaker for the Official Opposition followed by one speaker for the New Democratic Party and, that both speakers will be allowed whatever time is necessary to complete their speeches; and
That, immediately upon the completion of the speech by the New Democratic Party speaker, but in any event not later than 3.30 o'clock p.m., the Speaker shall adjourn the House until Monday, May 1, 1989, at 11 o'clock a.m.


Mr. Speaker:: I should point out that with respect to the Minister's motion concerning a designated day, it requires, of course, consent. The other motions of course do not require such consent.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly on a point of order. I understand that my House Leader has had discussions with the Government House Leader and the House Leader for the Liberal Party. Regretfully, we were not given the actual text of the motions in advance, which is the normal procedure. We support the motion since I understand it is consistent with what was agreed to. However, in the future I would ask that the office of the House Leader be given an advance copy as per our understanding.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. I am sure someone would have noticed the import of his intervention.


Jean J. Charest: With respect to the point raised by my colleague from the New Democratic Party, it is well taken. I will ensure that the next time an advance copy is delivered to his House Leader, which was not the case this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Minister.
Does the Hon. Government House Leader have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 19, 1989


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the drought of 1988 is still in a situation in which many things have not occurred, many constituents in my riding are petitioning the Government to ensure that drought relief is given to all townships on all crops in the country. I believe that there has been an administrative nightmare, a lack of administration, and as a result many people in my riding are very concerned.
I present this petition to you, Mr. Speaker, in light of that feeling.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from several hundred farm families from the southwest of Saskatchewan who note that the federal Government's decision to remove oats from the marketing jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board will reduce severely the income of oat producers in Canada, and place them at the mercy of the grain speculators.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to leave oats under the Wheat Board's jurisdiction. They also call upon Parliament to place the marketing of canola under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board as well.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition to this Elouse from citizens of the Prince George, B.C. area, who express their concerns about the continued improvement of VIA Rail service in northern British Columbia.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of about 400 residents of the Town of Strathroy and the surrounding area who have availed themselves of their ancient right to present their grievance to this House. They are upset about the fact that some persons convicted or accused of murder are not being returned to the United States. This could make this country a haven
Motions for Papers
for such dangerous fugitives and reduce confidence in our system of justice.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass and implement laws and procedures to provide immediate extradition of such convicted or accused persons, without recourse to such long delaying tactics.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition from 52 petitioners of the National Capital Region. The said petition deals with equality rights in Canada.
In March, 1986, this Government accepted a report and its recommendations that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to prohibit discrimination. Whereas the Government has yet to introduce legislation, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to act and bring forward such amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the Chair in the presence of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken) one of the Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers we have before us today, more specifically, the one identified as P- 3, presented on April 7,1989, on page 13. I noticed this morning, while looking at the Notices of Motions, this one quite clearly is unacceptable to the Government. I think if you were to refer to Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition rules, pages 137 and 138, it is quite clear that this Notice of Motion is not acceptable to the Government.
As far as the three other notices are concerned, I would ask that we allow them to stand.

April 19, 1989
Criminal Code


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Government House Leader has indicated citations in support of his position. I am aware of those citations, and I was aware of them when I submitted the motion for consideration to the House. I feel obliged to stand to speak to the matter. I want to indicate very briefly that I had expected the Government would be anxious to provide this information, in light of the circumstances that were raised in my point of order, not only because of the seriousness of the allegation but because of the-


Jean J. Charest: Point of order.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Deputy Government House Leader.


Jean J. Charest: Just to make it very clear, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands has admitted that he produced this Notice of Motion quite clearly knowing that it was not acceptable. The rules in Beauchesne are quite clear. It is also clear, and the Hon. Member has said that he knows the reference in the rules very well, that such Notices of Motions are not amendable, neither are they debatable.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister could have contained himself he would have been aware that I was not in fact debating the motion. What I was saying was I thought the Government would have been anxious to table the documents in order to not only provide some evidence to back up the position it has taken, but to assist the Chair in dealing with the question of privilege that was raised in this House last week, and which is under consideration at this time by Mr. Speaker.


Jean J. Charest: That is a little pretentious.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I thought the Government would be anxious to help. I realize the Deputy Government House Leader thinks that this is pretentious, but I think it is a serious matter. I think he might have given more consideration to it. In light of that, I am prepared to withdraw the notice at this time because I recognize that it may not, and I say may not, be in accordance with the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that Motion No. P-3 be withdrawn?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (pari-mutuel betting), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this afternoon for second reading Bill C-7, which provides for changes in legislation governing pari-mutuel betting in this country. This legislation was introduced in the last Parliament, and it subsequently died on the Order Paper. It was preceded by a a discussion paper which was circulated by Agriculture Canada, which outlined in broad detail the proposal.
This document was circulated in a very broad way for industry and for the public to respond to. I must say that there was broad industry support for this proposal, and indeed very little objection at that particular time. I think it is important that the Bill be proceeded with some degree of urgency. I hope that I have the co-operation and the support of all Hon. Members in seeing that this legislation is passed through in an expeditious fashion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As Hon. Members may be aware, the racing industry is suffering some difficulties. Bill C-7 offers a way to support this very important sector of the Canadian economy. I intend to deal with some of the difficulties that the racing industry is facing in Canada.
The proposed changes to Section 204 of the Criminal Code will permit pari-mutuel betting on horse races viewed in theatres, owned or leased by acting associations. Such theatres would have to be licensed by the appropriate provincial authority. The intent of the legislation is to provide the racing industry with a new marketing opportunity. It will help broaden the industry's economic base, which has been shrinking by increased competition from other forms of entertainment and wagering dollars. The jobs that are associated with this industry are very important.
April 19, 1989

As a result of this legislation not only will jobs be created but jobs will be preserved. Benefits will be gained throughout the country, including the new betting theatre segment. Betting theatres, also known as teletheatres, will create new jobs in cities where horse racing is not otherwise available. The jobs will be associated with the control of telecommunications, parimutuel services, and concessions. Service jobs will be created in the food and beverage sector, and facility support services. Horse men will benefit also from the increased purses. The industry will obviously be able to get increased purses to meet their increased costs for track maintenance and horse care. Higher incentives will maintain the scale of racing in Canada. At the same time, many Canadian thoroughbreds and standard breds can race abroad if they are outstanding performers. With increased domestic support, Canadian breeders will be able to produce outside racing stock.
Given these likely benefits, it is appropriate to take a few moments to outline the size and importance of the Canadian horse racing industry.
To begin with, it is a large proportion of the over-all Canadian horse industry. Racing's help, therefore, contributes directly to the over-all industry.
It also contributes to its over-all well-being by spreading the cost of supply of goods and services. The horse industry in Canada generates about $4 billion in economic activity. About 100,000 people are directly employed in the horse industry, 42,000 of them in racing. A further 20,000 people have jobs in services directly related to this industry. These include concessions, sales of feed, tack and other equipment.
Within the racing sector, capital investment is substantial as well. For example, the industry's inventory of all forms of land, equipment and buildings is at least $3.4 billion. Annual capital expenditure is estimated at $380 million.
Another significant factor is that the horse industry's balance of trade favours Canada. Americans wager approximately 20 times as much money at Canadian tracks as Canadians bet in the United States.
As we go through these statistics we recognize that racing is big business in Canada. To some it is a way of life. It is part of a culture, and many people are in it for the love of it.
Criminal Code
However, there are some strains and there are some concerns within the industry. It is fair to say, I believe, that from the standpoint of the racing industry it is important to take action now if the industry is going to be strengthened and preserved. We know that the United States has recently introduced betting theatres close to the border, in states such as New York, Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Washington. Furthermore, legislation is also being considered in Michigan and Minnesota.
As I said earlier, we now have a very favourable balance of trade in the United States with this business, but these new theatres south of the border may tip the current positive balance of trade in favour of the United States.
Canadian breeders and owners of standard bred and thoroughbred horses have greater penetration of the U.S. market than the other way around. There are two reasons for this. First, there are more opportunities for competitive racing in the United States and purses are in U.S. dollars, so that returns are obviously higher.
Since 1980, the Canadian racing industry has been under severe economic pressure. The causes are inflation, rising costs and a steep decline in industry income.
Other kinds of entertainment wagering such as lotteries have become a bigger part of Canadian life than they used to be. The returns to horse racing have shrunk as those to lotteries in particular have grown.
In 1987, Canada's provincially controlled lotteries made sales of $3.34 billion. This was an increase of some $700 million or 26 per cent over 1986. The likely reason for the growth is the wide variety of games available and because tickets are available at more than 34,000 locations across the country.
Competition is likely to become even more fierce in the future. Some provinces, such as Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, have already legalized some casino-type gambling. Others are likely to follow suit. These and similar forms of entertainment wagering will further increase the pressure on horse racing and its jobs as time passes by.
As an example of what is happening, we can look at Saskatchewan's recent experience. In 1987, more than $213 million went to casinos, bingo and other games of chance and lotteries took in over $93 million. Pari-mutuel betting, on the other hand, brought in only $12.5 million. Although final figures are not complete for 1988, this trend is continuing.

April 19, 1989
Criminal Code
Other levels of Government have given the industry some support. Every province, for example, applies a tax on pari-mutuel betting. During the past five years, provincial Governments have set up programs to rebate a part of their revenues directly to the tracks and horsemen.
These funds have been transferred in such ways as to provide for purses for breeder stake races, for equipment and capital, for improvement programs, assistance on overnight purses and advertising programs. As you can appreciate, these programs vary from one province to another, but considering the scale of the assistance it is not likely that further support from provincial sources will be possible.
Over the years, the House has also broadened its legislation to provide the industry with the means to promote growth and competitiveness.
For example, we supported such initiatives as intertrack betting, separate pool betting, foreign race separate pool betting, telephone account betting and additional exotic pools. All of these have served to increase the marketability of entertainment wagering on horse races, so they have all been helpful and of some use to the industry.
During 1988, intertrack betting was conducted at eight tracks. Some $146.7 million was wagered. That is an increase of almost 13 per cent over 1987.
Separate pool betting was available at another 19 tracks and attracted wagers of $21 million.
Foreign race separate pools were set up at 18 tracks across the country and attracted $10.4 million in bets on races originating at U.S. tracks. Six tracks offered telephone account betting resulting in more than $28 million wagered, which is a 20 per cent increase over 1987.
These means of betting continue to be of help. Raising association commissions on these additional amounts have helped them in meeting their continuously rising operating costs and have added to the horsemen's purses.
Much has been done, but more needs to be done. As the proposed theatre betting legislation will be implemented, again horsemen will be guaranteed through ensuing regulations a negotiated partnership with racing associations for the scheduling of races for intertrack, separate pool and theatre betting. They will also negotiate cost and revenue sharing.
Track commission rates have been adjusted to help cope with the cost squeeze caused by inflation. In 1982, the track commission rate was increased to a maximum of 15 per cent, although larger tracks were authorized at a lower rate. The allowable commission rate was again increased in 1984, and by 1985, the maximum rate was set at a flat 18 per cent. With the exception of a few large tracks, most racing associations are now operating at the 18 per cent commission level.
These adjustments mean that there is no leeway for future commission increases to meet any further rise in costs. The combined take-out by the tracks, provincial Governments and the federal operations levy has reached its probable upper limit. In other words, even a small increase in the take-out is likely to have a very negative impact on total amounts wagered.
Government has already given what support it can. On the market side, however, there are still opportunities to serve existing patrons in an improved fashion.
The intent of the legislation is to permit racing associations to bring their sport to patrons at locations other than racetracks. Teletheatres will allow the industry to take horse racing entertainment to cities where there are no tracks. Another application could see races transmitted live to teletheatres in densely populated areas even in close proximity to a track.
The teletheatre concept has been tested successfully in the United States. Teletheatres offer a potential for growth by catering to infrequent race-goers and some new fans. They increase customer convenience, offer the more pleasant surroundings of a theatre environment and increase the ability of the industry to compete head-to-head with other forms of entertainment in the theatre's immediate marketing area. Recent U.S. surveys have revealed who teletheatre patrons are. Half, we are told, have been to a race track one to five times within the previous 12 months. Thirty per cent have not been to a track in the previous year and one in 10 is a person who has never been to a race track.
The figures support several conclusions. Teletheatres will encourage the return of infrequent racegoers. They will cater to regular race patrons and they will assist the industry in attracting new fans. The U.S. experience has been very favourable. The Canadian industry believes it can administer betting theatres at least as well as U.S. operators and all segments of the industry support the initiative.
April 19, 1989

From the standpoint of the provinces, provincial interests are protected by the requirement that each theatre location be licensed by the provincial Lieutenant Governor before the federal Government will issue a teletheatre parimutuel betting licence. This is in recognition of the provincial responsibilities for horseracing. Furthermore, no association will be allowed to conduct theatre betting within its federally assigned market area unless it has reached an agreement with the horsemen to share the costs and revenues of theatre betting. As well, the two parties must agree on the scheduling of races at betting theatres.
More particularly for the future, I want to assure Hon. Members that the teletheatre concept will not evolve into on-street betting shops. Such establishments are not desired by either the Government or the industry. Rather, teletheatres will be required to have such minimum facilities as seating, food and beverage concessions, restraint in betting activity and, of course, live video coverage of races. In other words, teletheatres will be extensions of race tracks rather than replacements for them, and I think that is important to bear in mind.
The horseracing industry is labour intensive. It employs many skilled and unskilled workers, many of them in rural areas. As I said earlier, there is a commitment to this industry by many people and a love for the industry on the part of those who are involved in it. To them, it is more than simply a job. These jobs would be extremely difficult to replace if ever lost. As I said earlier, we are not only providing the potential for the creation of new jobs but we are in fact ensuring the preservation of existing jobs. We believe that the creation of teletheatres will protect these existing jobs as well as create new employment within the industry.
For these reasons, I would hope that we can gamer the support and co-operation of all Hon. Members, particularly Hon. Members opposite, to give favourable and expeditious consideration to the legislation before us. I believe the House should act on the opportunity to assist a very important sector of the Canadian economy, an opportunity which is being provided at no expense to the public.
Criminal Code
As I said earlier, we are not only preserving an industry but indeed promoting it. We are helping it along and providing the assurance that jobs will be maintained and created. As well, in strengthening this industry, we are in fact preserving a bit of Canadian culture, something that is quite fundamental to Canadian life. I would hope that I can call upon the goodwill and support of all Hon. Members in moving this legislation forward.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join in this afternoon's debate on Bill C-7 which provides for amendments to the Criminal Code with regard to pari-mutuel betting. At the outset, I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) that since the agriculture committee is to be organized later this afternoon or this evening, we might by unanimous consent consider referring the Bill to the agriculture committee rather than to a legislative committee in the hope that it might more expeditiously handle the Bill.
Bill C-7 does two things. It amends Section 204(2) of the Criminal Code and Section 204(8) of the Criminal Code and provides that pari-mutuel bets can be placed in a teletheatre as well as by telephone, as is allowed at the present time. That is the amendment to Section 204(2).
The amendment to Section 204(8) provides for the Governor in Council and the Lieutenant Governor to authorize the making of regulations by the Minister of Agriculture at the federal level and provides for the Lieutenant Governor in Council and such other persons or authority in the province as may be specified by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to issue licenses for the associations. At the technical level, those are the two amendments provided for by Bill C-7.
The impact of this legislation on the racing industry will go very far. The impact will be very important, particularly for the remote areas of Canada which do not have the population base to successfully operate race tracks on a long-term basis.
I am thinking particularly of the situation with Sudbury Downs in northern Ontario. The track has been closed, though I understand arrangements have now been made to have a racing season this fall and to have a simulcast racing operation this summer. That situation is typical of the difficulties that are faced in a number of areas of Canada, areas that simply do not have a large enough population base to support a race track.

April 19, 1989
Criminal Code
Under this legislation, the Sudbury race track could perhaps establish teletheatre operations in the other four large cities of northern Ontario, Sault St. Marie, Thunder Bay, Timmins and North Bay. Perhaps such operations could be established in smaller communities such as Elliot Lake, communities which would be large enough to justify the establishment of such a facility. That is generally considered to be one of the most important aspects of the Bill. It will provide assistance to these tracks which are having financial difficulties. However, the Bill goes beyond that. It will help not only remote tracks like Sudbury Downs. I am not sure that if the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mrs. Marleau), were here, she would want me to talk about the Sudbury track as being remote. However, Sudbury does not have a large enough population base to make the track operate on a financially viable basis at this time. Adding to it the population of all the other large cities in northern Ontario could be very helpful in making it a viable operation.
As I understand the legislation, smaller local race track associations throughout Ontario and perhaps in other provinces as well will be able to operate teletheatres. Places like Kingston, Belleville and other communities which do have very short racing seasons will be able to operate teletheatres throughout the season. Perhaps it will make the race tracks more viable by providing a longer racing season and will also provide more revenue, not only to the track but to the horsemen. However, if a signal from one of the larger tracks in Toronto is being received by racing associations in other communities, the percentage of benefit to local horsemen and local tracks will be cut in two because it will have to be divided with the originating track as well.
In 1985, legislation was passed with respect to intertrack betting. That has been an existing situation where there has been a track meet and a betting situation. To have it operate in other seasons has not been permitted, as far as I understand from the legislation. There is a general upgrading and improvement in the benefits. A person may ask why, if the industry was viable a few years ago, it is not now. The problem is that this industry is a form of entertainment. It is competing with many other forms of entertainment. I looked at a report or an over-view conducted by Woods Gordon in 1985 on the
economic impact of horse racing in Canada. This report is slightly dated, however I believe the impact and the percentages would be very similar.
The report suggests that in 1983 the expenditures on horse racing were approximately $31 per annum, per family, I assume. By comparison, for government-operated lotteries it was $138 per year. At that time other raffles got $32 per year. The report also lists other entertainment activities, such as live arts performances, movies, and professional sports.
The actual penetration and the escalation in costs for horse racing have pulled away the profits from this industry in areas with a smaller population, such as Sudbury Downs and other smaller areas across the country. I believe that the legislation will benefit those operations.
The Minister mentioned the 100,000 jobs involved in the horse racing industry. At least in the smaller areas, the vast majority of those jobs are not on the track but are on the farms that provide raising and breeding areas, and the production of feed and hay. It is a broad-based industry in terms of providing employment, and a very important industry in that regard.
The Minister also made reference to a booklet published in 1987 regarding teletheatre wagering and the consultation that has taken place. Many of the racing commissions have expressed concern about the legislation. Generally speaking, in the past the federal Government has had the responsibility for pari-mutuel betting. However, the general operation of tracks is carried out by provincial Governments or provincial racing commissions. Some provinces see this as diminishing then-authority to oversee and manage the whole horse racing industry. Concerns have been expressed by the owners and breeders that they should have an important role. I am sure that in committee stage there will be an opportunity to explore those concerns.
As I understand the proposed regulations, there will have to be an acceptable agreement between the horsemen and the track. This agreement will have to be acceptable to the federal Government, to the horse racing section of the Department of Agriculture. Ib some extent that should allay those fears and concerns. However, many of the provincial regulatory bodies still feel that their over-all control will be diminished by the legislation.
April 19, 1989

The federal Government will set out the home market area in which teletheatres can operate. Beyond that, the provincial regulatory body will have some jurisdiction, but not with regard to setting the home market area. Regulations will be enforced by the provincial Government. However, it will not make those regulations and it will not necessarily have input into them, although it probably will have some input since it controls the agencies and the regulatory body. Provincial agencies have expressed the concern that there will be no provision for a competitive process for the operation of the teletheatres.
Those are the concerns expressed by some provincial Governments. I hope we will have an opportunity to hear them at close range when the Bill is considered by the Standing Committee or the legislative committee, whichever it goes to.
In the second part of the proposed Bill it authorizes the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) to make regulations which will define teletheatre betting, teletheatre licensing, and the theatre market area. The regulations will allow for ownership or leasing of theatre facilities by a racing association. Under the regulation there will be provision to prevent a teletheatre from becoming a betting shop, and certain criteria and standards must be met. That is very important, otherwise it could deteriorate solely into a betting theatre.
In some states in the United States it is like cable television. The teletheatres can become as important as the race track. It is very important that there be co-operation between the two levels of Government to ensure that the teletheatre is not wagging the race tracks, and that there is good co-operation between the two levels of Government in that regard. The regulations also provide that there be an agreement between the horsemen and the track whenever a teletheatre operation is established.
Those are some of the regulations that I am told will be brought into play when the legislation is adopted by the Government and the Department is able to put in place those regulations. Those are the main points that I wished to raise. There is concern from the provincial regulatory agencies that they be addressed in the committee hearings. They have the over-all responsibility for enforcing the operation of the race tracks in their provinces.
Criminal Code
This legislation can be beneficial to the racing industry to extend its approach across the country in an expanded market area, providing entertainment and ensuring that horse racing continues, not only so that jobs are provided but that entertainment is provided. We have to assume that betting will take place, whether it is buying a Wintario ticket or by going to the Saturday night bingo. It is important that if we are to have betting that it should be on a controlled basis where there is some benefit to Government. In fact, most benefits in horse racing go back to the patrons and the tracks. Provincial Governments do very well out of the whole arrangement. My understanding is that the federal Government barely breaks even. Its operation is to ensure the reliability and the policing of pari-mutuel betting. Most of the tax benefits go to the provincial Governments. In any event, it is a vital industry. There are 100,000 jobs in the horse racing industry which encompass farming operations, breeding operations and the livestock industry which supports and encourages it. If you compare the horse racing industry with a number of other major industries in Canada, a very large number of people are involved.
I hope we can devise a Bill that will protect the rights of society and that we do not descend to a situation of uncontrolled gambling shops but provide a high-quality pari-mutuel teletheatre arrangement which will be beneficial to the industry without any adverse effect on the community at large.
We want to see this legislation go to committee where it can be given more detailed study. From the briefing that a couple of us in our caucus had, it is obviously quite a complicated industry even though the amendments before us today are quite simple in themselves. We want to see this Bill move on to committee stage.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the Hon. Member's comments and his obvious support for the Bill. In light of the support and the fact that this measure has been around since 1987 in at least a proposed form, would he consider moving the Bill through all stages today?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, we believe that generally the Bill is beneficial but it is a measure that has never been debated before. There have been concerns expressed by some provincial agencies. We want to see the legislation dealt with expeditiously but we prefer to see that done in the committee, as proposed before the House today.

April 19, 1989
Criminal Code


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, just a further point of order. This Bill would normally go to a legislative committee but the offer was made by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) that it go to the Agriculture Committee. If it is the intention of the Opposition to have the Bill dealt with in committee, I would certainly support the suggestion of sending it to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. If there is agreement from the New Democratic Party and the Liberals, perhaps we could make that agreement right here.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, our Party would be quite willing to send the matter to the Standing Committee on Agriculture rather than to the legislative committee.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) because of the concern we in the Sudbury Basin had about the closing of Sudbury Downs. The owners of that track have long requested and supported teletheatre betting. In fact, horsemen who operate at the track and the owners of the track negotiated the collective agreement which provided for 50 per cent of the revenues from teletheatre betting to go to them in increased purses. I want to let the Deputy Prime Minister know that if we on this side had received the support of the Liberal Party, we would have liked to see the Bill go through all stages. It is long overdue and it will really help northern Ontario which has the one standard bred track, a B track, in Sudbury which has a very small population. This Bill would put racing entertainment into all comers of northern Ontario.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in light of that very convincing support, maybe the Hon. Member from Algoma and his Party may want to reconsider. I always find the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) very persuasive, very articulate and very emotional when he has to be. Today he made his point in a very clear and coherent fashion without any emotion. I appreciate his support. I think he has hit the nail right on the head. It is important that this matter be moved very quickly.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I have been following this conversation with interest.
I take it the Government is now proposing that the order on second reading be changed and that the Bill be referred to the Agriculture Committee. With that I agree. I have no difficulties that debate continue and when debate on second reading is terminated the Bill can go to that committee.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on second reading debate on Bill C-7, to amend the Criminal Code with regard to parimutuel betting at race tracks. This is one of the items that reinforces the variety of the agriculture critic. This Bill comes under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture because of its role in monitoring race tracks, the way animals are treated, testing for doping and so on. RCMP officers are used at the tracks to provide the legal overview. I understand those members of the RCMP are temporarily paid by the Department of Agriculture so they too become members of the vast Department of Agriculture for the period of time they are thus engaged.
Horse racing in Canada, as we all know, has been a longstanding form of entertainment for people. It is something that we brought from our European and Asian roots as well as from our North American roots. Regardless of our ethnic background, horse racing has been very much a part of our culture. It has continued to be the case in Canada from the days when furlong races occurred between the cross-roads of Ontario and Quebec farms because the survey system was measured in furlongs. Many races are still held on a furlong and a fraction basis. That tradition remains with us.
The racing industry has been used as a means of developing competition, both as to who can develop the best training techniques, who can produce the fastest horses and who can provide that last little technical advice at the jockey level to produce a winner by a nose instead of a loser by half a length.
So it is something that we have grown up with, that we are interested in maintaining. It still attracts the attention of a great many Canadians. It is still one of the largest spectator sports in this country because of its entertainment value. But because it has developed as an industry, as often happens when you are attempting to develop something that is faster and better than somebody else, there is the element of competition that makes it a business. Part of the financing of that business has always been the sale of breeding stock, with the owners and producers of the very fastest horses getting a premium price for the seed stock that they have raised and produced.
April 19, 1989

Over time most cultures have developed a tradition of having little wagers as to which horse is going to be the fastest, just as often happens with any competition. This has probably been more prevalent in horse racing than in many other sports. Horse racing has probably taken wagering to greater heights than a lot of other sports in that it has always attempted to keep the wagering above board and legal.
As we all know, some of the small country tracks do not permit pari-mutuel betting. The wagering still goes on for nickels and dimes and sometimes fairly large paper money, but it is always done between individuals or small groups of individuals to add to the spice of each particular race.
A few years ago, the Government introduced changes to the pari-mutuel betting Bill which would permit the use of the teletheatre as a means of extending the racing season and making it possible for people to observe races outside the country and to place bets in those teletheatres. For those for whom the betting is very important, this permits them to be involved a little more in races such as the Kentucky Derby, some of the big stake breeders' cup races, the Breeders' Crown, and the standard bred side.
Of the 18 tracks that permit betting on foreign races, last year $10.4 million was bet on foreign races which was a 34.4 per cent increase over 1987. That aspect of the tele-betting is just beginning to start. People are just beginning to remember that there are tele-betting shops for foreign racing and are beginning to take advantage of it. The implication to the racing industry of the expansion of the types of betting possible is such that it means larger amounts of money for the racehorse owners who do share in the revenue from the betting, both in tele-betting and in regular betting at the tracks. So this permits them to eventually have larger purses, and in fact that seems to be happening to some extent. We note that last year the gross purses available under the licensed tracks in Canada went up from $159 million or thereabouts in 1987 to $178 million in 1988, an increase of almost 12 per cent.
So it has increased the revenue to the racing industry and permits more purses and larger purses so that the owners of the race horses can have more funds available to them for expansion of their industry. This industry has very few other places to go. As I say, it is very large in the entertainment field in terms of attracting a lot of
Criminal Code
spectators. In this day and age about the only expansion that they can make is to big screen television.
They have done a reasonably good job of getting horse racing included in our national sporting events. Though, to be fair, CBC, CTV, the national networks only carry a very few races in the course of their sports broadcasting during a year. They carry the Queen's Plate, the Kentucky Derby and only a few other races on an annual basis. It is not attracting the attention of the television networks that Hockey Night in Canada does, or some of those kinds of television spectaculars. As a result, the opportunity for the racing fraternity to get into commercialization or the advertising that might accrue from more televised broadcasting of their races, has been more or less cut off from them. So they have retaliated and responded by making proposals to extend the season for particular race tracks by going to television betting, so that people can go out to the track, have a meal or a drink, do some visiting and place bets right through to the last races in the season.
We are told that this gives opportunities for tracks, particularly in the more sparsely-settled parts of the country, to extend the season. For instance, in my area the racing season could begin at Lloydminster with television showing in Saskatoon and Regina. Followers of the races could begin by following the season on television in Saskatoon and Regina, watch the races in Lloydminster and, as the horse owners shift into Saskatoon and end up in Regina, the televised section could go back to the cities that no longer have the live races. This could extend the betting season for the general public. It gives an opportunity for increased revenues for the participants and horse owners.
This is an era when some parts of the country are having difficulty maintaining economic viability. You only have to go through the racing figures to see that those provinces that are having the most economic pressure are having it reflected in the take at the tracks. For instance, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Manitoba and British Columbia have been under some economic pressure. It is no surprise that the amount of betting being done at tracks in those provinces went down slightly last year, reflecting that. So there has been economic pressure put on the racing industry from competition, from the general downturn in the economy for some of them and competition for leisure dollars which race track owners are hoping to be able to offset with the move into more televised betting and the use of the telephone into those betting stations.

April 19, 1989
Criminal Code
For those who look at racing from the point of view of gambling dollars, there is more competition with the increase in casinos and bingos across the country. The money being spent at those options are increasing in most of the provinces. Thus, pari-mutuel betting is up against that type of direct competition. That competition probably draws a slightly different kind of crowd in that most people who have been involved in race track pari-mutuel betting like to see the horses and like to see the race. They like to be there or at least close enough to see it on a big screen. It is a little different from watching cards. Some people have to see the horse, which is the main kick.
This is permissive legislation which requires the acceptance of each of the provinces and their respective racing commissions. We are hopeful that the legislation will recognize that to the point that each province will be cognizant of it and form their own policy groups, probably made up of their own racing commissions, representatives of Agriculture Canada, the race tracks or the race track owners in the particular province and the provincial horsemen's associations which are racing at those tracks. It would be much simpler all round if these four groups were involved right from the beginning in setting the policy for each province. However, I am not sure that this point has to be stated in the legislation. We understand that some of the groups may want to put that point forward as the legislation goes to committee.
There have been a few concerns expressed in this regard. However, the reception from the horse racing community has been positive. Those involved in it have been under considerable pressure in some parts of the country as a result of the general economic downturn. Some of them have felt the pressure from Revenue Canada with changes in the interpretation of who is a farmer and who is not. That is something important to the over-all health of the racing industry since the smaller race horse operators are very much a necessity in terms of keeping the industry alive. They have to be able to increase and improve the breed. They also have an important role to play. It is not a question of the top breeders who have to be maintained. We also have to maintain the balance of the system. It has to be kept in relative good health, otherwise moderate to good horses have no other place to go.
Without the small operators and the small tracks the industry could not survive. It is a question of general genetics and so on that only a few of the top horses ever actually make it into the top sales and record books. For that reason we are supportive of this initiative. We will be supportive of it as it leaves the House in the form of legislation. We hope the initiative will strengthen the industry both by lengthening the season through the use of telephone and television and that it is successful in its attempt to increase revenues at the farm level where the horse owners need it.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate today. I want to say that I am further pleased that there has been all-Party agreement that the Bill should go to the Agriculture Committee of the House of Commons as soon as possible.
First, I want to say that the Canadian horse industry and the racing industry is perhaps one of the best regulated industries of any country in the world. It has gained reputation for its excellence, not only for the horses but for the horsemen we have in Canada. Horse racing has always been referred to as the sport of kings. It is also the poor man's sport. I well recall the first year I went to high school. I rode a horse in those early years, a horse that was not broken until it was seven years old. We had a lot of exciting times en route.
I am also extremely interested in the Bill since over the last week or two I have discussed it with some of my neighbours, some of whom are involved in the industry, people such as Bemie Geerts, the Warners, Dr. Chris Deuzeman, Cecil Maddock and, last but not least, the Campbell family. I refer here to Ray Campbell and his son Rob, but more particularly to Duncan Campbell of Ailsa Craig who was inducted into the Canadian Horseman's Hall of Fame on January 21, 1983. Duncan Campbell is 89 years old and still owns a race horse.
This remarkable family, headed by Duncan, along with his two sons Ray and Jack, still race and train race horses. Grandson Jim is an excellent trainer and grandsons Rob and John are drivers. John Campbell of Ailsa Craig is one of the leading drivers in North America to date this year. He was the leading driver in North America for the last three out of four years. I am proud to reflect on the exploits and the tradition of excellence displayed by the Campbell family.
April 19, 1989

I support the principle of the Bill. However, there are some areas of concern which I believe will be resolved when it is referred to committee. The first area of concern, and perhaps the most important, is one on which I will dwell for only a few moments. It is the indication that the Minister will decide the market area. I, for one, would like to have a very clear understanding of how this decision will be made and what will be taken into consideration as the basis for it. I refer here to the example in southwestern Ontario where we have race tracks at London, Hiawatha at Sarnia, Windsor and at Dresden mid-way between Sarnia and Windsor. Dresden Raceway runs about 24 race dates per year. It is not the typical city track that we see outside Toronto, or at Flamboro', Fort Erie or Woodbine. This track is in a rural area originally established to coincide with the fall fair.
It is the type of track that does not have a fancy dining lounge. However, there is a series of excellent restaurants in the community and surrounding communities. Its clientele is quite unusual and there is an atmosphere of neighbour meeting neighbour. It is an atmosphere of "We'll see you at the races". It is a picnic-type atmosphere which means so much to the area. It is noted for its good racing and its Sire Stakes.
As we put this Bill into legislation, it is important that we look to see the impact it may have on an operation such as this one, which is surrounded by three much larger cities. If the teletheatre is introduced we will see how it will impact on this track. Will there be opportunities there for the people who attend the races and for the horsemen who race there to have their share of the action so that they will not be elbowed out by larger places?
I have had very positive comments about the test markets at Hiawatha at Sarnia where last winter there was a test that was successful. However, it was not as successful as it could have been due to cut-backs in staffing at the Blue Water Bridge into Michigan. There were long line-ups in traffic. As a result, about 70 per cent of the clientele came from the Ontario side while only 30 per cent was from Michigan. It was really not an accurate test. Although it was not accurate, I believe it will become a positive feature of that track, in particular for the older people who want to attend a race and to see a horse running. In Toronto, people who may own or have an interest in a horse can simply go to the Hiawatha track, to London or Dresden and in the teletheatres
Criminal Code
watch their horses race. I want to make sure that this is clearly spelled out either in the legislation or in the regulations. I would be most interested to see draft regulation as to how this area will be dealt with.
Another area I want to examine for a little while in committee also-and the Minister made mention of it in his address-is that this is not an off-track betting shop concept. I want to look at it to make sure that it will have a positive impact on the industry. In this context I would like to relate to the impact of such betting shops in the State of Massachusetts which destroyed the industry. We want to make sure that does not happen here in Canada.
I would suggest that we should look at what has happened to the race tracks of Foxboro and Yonkers in Massachusetts through the introduction of the betting shop concept. I do not want to spend much time on this, but I just want to reiterate that the Canadian racing industry is one of the best in the world.
I agree in principle with the intent of the Bill. I will want to examine further the proposed regulations and the areas to be regulated to ensure the continuing viability of this industry.
With those few brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will look forward to studying this matter in committee.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise today to make a few remarks in this debate on Bill C-7. I want to say at the outset that I am solidly in support of this piece of legislation.
My riding of Mississauga West will probably never have theatre betting because some 25 miles in one direction we have the Greenwood race track, some 15 miles in another direction we have Woodbine race track, some 30 miles in another direction we have Mohawk, and 80 miles in another direction we have Fort Erie race track. They are not going to set up a theatre betting shop in my riding and take patrons away from the race track who normally attend.
This Bill is designed to help tracks that are in trouble. I have spoken to tracks right across Canada. Tracks in Quebec want this legislation. Sudbury Downs is closed today and cannot open until this legislation goes through. Manitoba wants it very badly. Assiniboia Downs in Manitoba is in. a lot of trouble. Managers and owners of tracks in British Columbia have come to see me and have requested that we put through this Bill.

April 19, 1989
Criminal Code
What we are talking about here today are jobs and a very fine industry. I know of what I speak, because from 1964 to 1971 I was a veterinarian at race tracks in Ontario. It is a very well run industry. It employs about 100,000 people who would have difficulty finding employment somewhere else. They have grown up in the racing industry. It is a family. I was very shocked to hear the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) state that he wanted the provinces to have a say in this regard. The provinces have every say in it.
The amendments before the House recognize the responsibilities and the interest of the provinces. No theatre could operate without first being granted a licence by the province. I really do not see what the problem is. I commend the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Althouse) for their insight in wanting to see this Bill go through all stages today. It is a very important Bill. It is connected very closely to agriculture.
Some great race horses have been produced in Canada, not the least of which was Northern Dancer in 1964, one of the finest race horses this world has ever known. It is nice to hear about the great racing families. There are great racing families all over the country, not only in Lambton-Middlesex. There are the Waples and Sandy Hawley who came out of Whitby and has gone on to be a riding champion in the United States.
We know that we have a small amount of illegal bookmaking on sporting events and race tracks. The police are doing everything they can to control it. There is only a small amount of bookmaking, but the Bill will assist in cutting down on the amount of bookmaking. It will make races available to people who do not have them.
I am thinking of Sudbury Downs. What is to stop having the races shown by satellite in a nice theatre not only in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario but in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. This money could go back to the horsemen, keep the industry alive and keep the purses up.
What has happened in the racing industry is that it costs $50 a day to keep a horse at the race track and pay a trainer. It was once known as the sport of kings, and we all know that the Royal Family is still interested. However, today it is the sport of the common man. In my riding
we have fire-fighters who own race horses. Many people form syndicates; three or four people get together and buy a race horse. There is nothing more thrilling than to see your colours come across the finish line.
I would love to see this Bill go through all stages today. The province is protected in every way possible. The province will issue the licence. We know that there is competition for the betting dollar from bingos and from lotteries. Something like 38,000 stores are selling lottery tickets, pushing all kinds of lottery tickets. We are talking about the viability of an industry, an industry that has a good image and a lot of integrity.
Let us talk about the betting dollar for a moment. Canadians in 107 race tracks across Canada last year bet $1.7 billion. The federal Government gets a bit of that, three-quarters of 1 per cent, which is just enough to support what it does for the racing industry. We control the pari-mutuel wagering. We control the photo finish cameras and the big contracts which go out to Mendelssohn Films and others. We also control the drug testing. It is very sophisticated drug testing. They can tell us within hours when a horse was given something. I have been in these testing labs at Can Test and Man Test. They can tell us what a horse is being fed. If a horse gets linseed oil to help his coat, they can tell us. They can tell us everything a horse has been given and when it was given.
The integrity of this sport is really great. All around the tracks they have patrol judges who watch the races. They make sure that there is no cheating of any kind. The racing industry is a sport with a lot of integrity and a lot of people really enjoy it.
I was interested in the comments of the Hon. Member for Mackenzie on the traditions. I am sure he and I remember in the winter-time when cars did not run on country roads. Everyone had a driver and farmers used to race to town to get their groceries.
The provincial Governments get approximately 10 per cent of every dollar that is bet, that is, a $170 million are going into the tax coffers.
This is a very important Bill. It is a very tiny little Bill, some page and a quarter. It is an amendment to the Criminal Code.

If we cannot get all-Party agreement to put the Bill through all stages today, I recommend that we go immediately to the Standing Committee on Agriculture where, with a few witnesses, we can ascertain that it is absolutely necessary for the viability of the racing industry. I thank you for allowing me to make those remarks, Mr. Speaker.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the Hon. Member for Mississauga West (Mr. Homer) refer to horse racing as the sport of kings. I suppose Members are wondering why a socialist would be speaking in support of this Bill. In fact, I feel some connection to the race track. Politicians have been called all parts of the anatomy of a horse, so I feel comfortable speaking to this Bill.
As a matter of fact, I remember a story about a chap who was at the race track. He was in line at the $50 win ticket window. The fellow ahead of him in line asked for a $50 ticket on number two to win. The fellow standing behind him tapped him on the shoulder and said: "Number two won't win". The fellow said: "Is that right?" and turned around to the ticket seller and said: "Give me another $50 ticket on number two to win". The guy behind him tapped him on the shoulder again and said: "I know that you bet on number two but I suggest that you don't". The other chap said: "Okay, give me another $50 on number two to win".
Finally, the fellow was so frustrated that he took him out of the line and said: "Look, there are six horses in this race. I told you that number two cannot win". The other fellow said: "How do you know number two cannot win?" And the other guy said: "I own number two". The other fellow said: "Well, it will be one slow race because I own the other five".
I know the common conception that is held by those who have no appreciation of the sport. Let us consider the contribution racing has given to this country. We have heard about the contribution in terms of the taxes that are collected. Over $100 million in taxes is collected in Ontario. Look at its contribution to pride in Canada, with Northern Dancer, the greatest stud there ever was.
Let us consider the contribution made by the jockeys like Sandy Hawley and Michel Lachance. Look at the contribution we made to track and field in Canada. All the veterinarians here will know what I am talking about.
Criminal Code
I am supporting this Bill because we have a race track in the Sudbury area called Sudbury Downs. The population in the Sudbury basin is some 160,000. We do not have millions of people like there are in Mississauga West. We have a small population and the track must increase its revenues. If there are not enough people to come to the race track we must take racing to the population centres in northern Ontario.
That is what this Bill will provide. It would allow J. C. Maclsaac to show through satellite his racing in theatres in Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins, North Bay and any other community.
The track has not opened. There are some 300 people, including the grooms, the trainers and the drivers, who depend directly on the track for employment, as well as the farmers, the breeders and all the students who work part time when the track is operating.
Mr. Mayen The people who supply the oats.


John R. Rodriguez: The suppliers of feed for the horses.
It is important to the community. The track pays $176,000 in municipal taxes to the community in which it is located. If the track is closed it cannot pay any municipal taxes.
While I do not see this activity as a major thrust toward tourism for creating challenging and interesting jobs, it is a priority for the region. Racing is a jewel in that presentation of tourism. It is another form of entertainment to attract tourists into the Sudbury basin.
I totally support the Bill. It has been long overdue. The horsemen at the track have already negotiated a contract with the Sudbury Downs whereby 50 per cent of the take from teletheatre betting would reflect itself in higher purses. Sudbury Downs needs to offer higher purses so it can attract more horses and provide more competitive racing that would result in greater attendance and greater revenues through the betting windows. I see this Bill as the saviour of Sudbury Downs.
The Bill states that the Minister will define the racing area for the track. Surely it will not be done unilaterally. Surely it will be done in consultation with the various racing commissions across the country. One has to assume that common sense will prevail because no one wants to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. I am quite sure that when the regions or areas for the teletheatres are established they will take into consideration where the track is located and what areas racing should be shown.

April 19, 1989
Criminal Code
This is the shortest speech I have made. It is because I recognize the importance of getting the Bill through very quickly. I would have preferred to see it go through all stages, as I proposed, but I have to settle for second best. Sometimes one bets to win, but one has to cover one's bets by betting to place and sometimes to show. I will accept the Bill going to the Agriculture Committee. Hopefully we can expedite it back here and have it passed, because Sudbury needs the Bill.
Let me say to the owners of the track in Sudbury that if they read this debate they will see that there is a commitment on the part of all Parties to support the principle of the Bill. All the Parties are prepared to work to get the Bill through the House.
The owners have an assurance that this Bill will be passed, and now I hope they will not delay any longer but will make provisions to open the track so that those trainers and drivers who are waiting on the grounds for this decision can begin getting some income from their labour.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to stand here today and agree with my friend from the right and my friend from the left. I am sure it is fairly unusual. As the Hon. Member for Sudbury, I wholeheartedly support the Bill. I certainly would like to see it passed as quickly as possible.
The Hon. Member for Mississauga West (Mr. Homer) stated that this is a sport of kings. I have known people interested in this sport. Even some Members of Parliament own horses and are very interested in the sport. There are those as well who benefit from the sport such as veterinarians, and I believe that the Hon. Member to my right is one of them. A member of my own caucus is a member of that same profession, and they certainly benefit from the sport. All kinds of people enjoy the benefits of horse racing, particularly horse owners and track owners. The people who attend race tracks, if they can take away a few winnings, enjoy it. It certainly provides for a very enjoyable evening.
It was with great sadness that I heard earlier this year that Sudbury Downs was not planning to reopen its doors. Today I am told that because this Bill has been tabled and there is hope that it will move forward quickly, it will reopen its doors this year. Everyone in Sudbury is very happy about that. It means the preservation of a number of jobs. We in Sudbury and area all appreciate jobs, believe me.
I would like to correct one Hon. Member. The Hon. Member to my left said that the Sudbury area has a small population. Small is only small in terms of how it is qualified. I always resent people telling me that I come from a small population base when that population base is 150,000. It is nice to tell people that it really is not that small. When it is compared to a population base in the millions such as that of southern Ontario, I suppose it is small.
I do take some offence to being told that Sudbury is remote. The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) realizes that even though we live in northern Ontario, we do not consider it to be remote. I invite everyone to come there and enjoy what we have to offer and to spend their money, to visit Science North and to enjoy our great tourist attractions including Sudbury Downs.
I am certainly happy to support this Bill and I would hope it passes as quickly as possible.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the whole of this debate. All speakers from all Parties are in favour of the Bill. However, I am glad that the Bill is to go through the normal process that should apply to all legislation except in the case of dire emergencies.
If this Bill were truly as urgent as the Government says it is and as high a priority as it portrays it to be, it could have brought the Bill forward in the last Parliament. The Government could have brought it forward a year and a half or even two years ago and it could have been law long since. The reason the Bill is not now the law of the land is because the Government has given it a low priority. Instead of seeking to deal with it the way legislation is normally dealt with which is to say through parliamentary channels, the Government has tended to adopt a last minute strategy. Bills are presented as being urgently needed to be passed within hours or all opportunity to see them become law will be lost.
The Government should get serious about this Bill. It should encourage it to go through the normal process with at least one hearing so that we can hear about other aspects of the Bill than the main focus of the agriculture committee which is to ensure that the agricultural industry in every sector is healthy, and I wish the committee well in that goal.
April 19, 1989

For my part, I hope to be able to attend the meetings of the agriculture committee. Although I am not the agriculture critic for my Party, I am the justice critic and this is an amendment to the Criminal Code. I am also interested to know why it is that a number of provinces including the Province of Ontario are objecting to this Bill. I would like to hear their points of view. As well, I would like to hear why the United Church of Canada objects to this Bill. To view these objections and the process implied by these objections as somehow being an obstruction is totally unworthy.
We are parliamentarians here. We ought to recognize that there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with legislation. We know that there are serious voices like at least one or more provincial Government and a very important religious institution that wish to be heard. We should not urge each other to try to rush the Bill through without giving it the minimum amount of debate.
We in Canada have reasonable procedures and I think we should follow those reasonable procedures. Normally, a Criminal Code amendment would go to the justice committee, but that is a technicality. I intend to participate in the process of the Bill as it goes through the agriculture committee, and I would urge all Hon. Members, particularly new Members, to take our rules seriously. Let us not depart from them. Let us not seek unanimous consent to try to depart from procedures that have been established and tested by time without a veiy good reason for doing so.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. Janies):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose almost everyone has his or her favourite story relating to the sport of kings. I do not know if I can proffer a story as colourful as that of my Hon. friend from Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I certainly cannot match his colourful oratory.
I live very near Assiniboia Downs in the City of Winnipeg. It is located in my riding of Winnipeg-St. James. I have visited Assiniboia Downs many, many times, being about only five minutes from there. I have at times zipped out to Assiniboia Downs after dinner in the evening to catch a couple of races.
I recall a number of years ago being at Assiniboia Downs with a friend of mine. He and I were having a chat between races and we were set upon, as it were, by a young boy of I would say about ten years old, and he turned to my friend whose name was Joe, by the way, and asked him: "Who is going to win the next quinella?"
Criminal Code
My friend Joe did not have much patience, but the young boy persisted. Finally Joe sort of shooed him away and said: "Oh, go away, it will be one and ten."
You probably know the end of the story, Mr. Speaker. One-In-Ten did come in and the boy collected hugely while on the other hand, my friend Joe did not collect a nickel because he did not bet on one and ten.
I am sure that that does not match the story told by my friend from Nickel Belt. I do not know whether his story is true or apocryphal, but mine is true.
I rise this afternoon in support of this initiative perhaps because my closeness to Assiniboia Downs which is of course the major race track in the Province of Manitoba. I support this initiative and the proposed legislation. I certainly would not want to hold it up, but I agree with my hon. friend from York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). We should take our parliamentary business seriously. We should take the democratic process seriously, and we should not rush this through.
I listened to my hon. friend from Mississagua West suggest quite seriously and sincerely that this Bill should be put through all stages this afternoon. I think that that would be moving much too quickly. The Government did have its time to do this earlier. For some reason, it neglected its business. We can wait a few more days before this piece of legislation is enacted.
After all, people are entitled to express their views, to bring forward their opinions and to ask questions. I was speaking to one of my colleagues from Prince Edward Island this afternoon and he told me how important the racetrack in Charlottetown is. In that relatively small city within that relatively small community, last year alone, wagering amounted to some $6 million at that race track. That is a lot of money and that is a lot of jobs. It is a significant industry in the area. I am sure the people from that area would have some questions, views and opinions, and we should afford them the opportunity to make a presentation at the agriculture committee if they so choose. Surely, as parliamentarians, we should afford them that opportunity. That is the least we can do, even though there is all-Party agreement that this Bill should go forward to its conclusion.
The Bill is important to the industry. It is certainly important to Assiniboia Downs and to the racing industry in the Province of Manitoba. For example, it is a vital tourist attraction. Our city is only a few miles from the United States border. There is no major league racing, if I can put it that way, in the State of North Dakota. Thousands and thousands of visitors and tourists flock

April 19, 1989
Criminal Code
north from North Dakota, South Dakota, and the State of Minnesota to the Province of Manitoba and to Assiniboia Downs to enjoy an afternoon or an evening at the races. This legislation will ultimately enhance the business and make this industry more attractive.
In my province, Assiniboia Downs and the racing industry employ roughly 3,000 people. That is very significant. We as parliamentarians have a responsibility to support that type of industry. I have been told that if the Bill goes through, which I am sure that it will, it could add 500 to 600 jobs to the industry. Again, I consider that significant. We should throw our support behind it as much as possible.
Over half the population of the Province of Manitoba resides in the capital City of Winnipeg. The other half of the population, approximately 500,000 people, is scattered throughout the rest of the province. There are many race fans in the cities of Brandon, Dauphin, Thompson, Swan River, Flin Flon, and The Pas. As this industry expands and grows it is not hard to envisage that there could be theatre betting established in the City of Brandon or in the City of Dauphin. I feel strongly that they are entitled to it.
Going out for an evening at the races is a pleasant pastime. Many times I have gone to Assiniboia Downs to enjoy the races. I do not only enjoy the races, but I enjoy the restaurant facilities and the company of friends. It is an evening out, a real social occasion. It is not only watching the ponies running or betting. It is a full package. It would go over very well in communities such as Brandon, Dauphin, The Pas, Swan River, or wherever the industry feels that it can reach out. We should support this type of initiative.
I want to say one more thing about giving people the opportunity to express themselves. Almost nothing in this world can be construed as motherhood, and there are people who are down on wagering of this nature or who are down on any type of betting. The business of racing, the sport of kings, has its detractors. Those people have a right to tell us their concerns and
reservations. We should facilitate hearing those people. Like my friend, the Hon. Member for York Centre I would like to hear from the United Church of Canada if indeed that particular church has reservations or concerns. In the fine tuning of the legislation, if that comes to be, if we can fine tune it perhaps to alleviate some of their concerns then we have done our work.
While this piece of legislation deserves our support, let us send it to the agricultural committee where the democratic process can go forward. There is still time.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand there is unanimous consent this afternoon to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister.


Mr. Cardiff:: Co-operation has been achieved this afternoon from all Parties of the House. I want to thank all Members who participated in the debate for that co-operation, and in the spirit of co-operation I would ask the Speaker to call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.56 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 20, 1989