1992-05-01

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with reference to notice of a matter of privilege which I filed with the Chair late yesterday afternoon.
A sequence of events took place in the House yesterday at approximately 5 p.m. that I feel is a breach-I hope the Chair will feel that way-of the clear intentions of the members of the House. It may have involved a misunderstanding on the part of the Chair. I hope the Speaker will accept that I want to put the matter in a way that does not indicate disrespect for the Chair.
It is an attempt to put right what I believe is a matter that has not been done right. It involves a matter of procedure.
In order to do that, Mr. Speaker, I have to very briefly indicate the sequence to you so you can understand the perspective of the members. I do not think I speak only on behalf of myself. There are other members who have a very clear interest in this.
In essence, the Chair yesterday terminated debate on a question before the House. In fact, there were two questions. There was a second reading motion and an amendment to the second reading motion.
The Speaker at 5 p.m., give or take one minute on either side of 5 p.m., terminated debate in the following sequence. It happened in the clear face of information which I believe the Chair had within his knowledge.
There was an agreement among the House leaders that the matter before the House at that time would have at least two day's debate. On Wednesday, it was clearly stated that this coming Monday the matter of Bill
C-63 would continue to be debated. That is clear in the record.
Second, the Chair had a list of speakers in his possession which clearly showed a continuing sequence of members wishing to speak to the matter then before the House.
Third, the Speaker had the benefit of two discussions with the member for Ottawa-Vanier which indicated to the Speaker at approximately 4.35 p.m. that he wished to speak to the matter, everyone with their eye on the clock. The Chair indicated, as I think the member for Ottawa-Vanier will indicate later, that the Speaker would want to recognize a member from the New Democratic Party and the Speaker did that.
The record shows that the Speaker recognized the member for Windsor-St. Clair at a point in time following 1640. Hansard shows the member for Park-dale-High Park speaking at 1640. That is on page 9942 of Hansard.
At a point in time following 1640, the Speaker recognized the member for Windsor-St. Clair. That member had, based on the rules of the House, 20 minutes to complete his remarks. If the full 20 minutes had been used, that would have taken him up to 5 p.m.
As the sequence evolved, the Speaker interrupted the member for Windsor-St. Clair. It was assumed by all members in the House, as I understand it, to be 5 p.m. That was when the Speaker rose and said to the member speaking at that time: "I regret the hon. member's time has expired".
Based on Hansard, that could only mean that we had arrived at 5 p.m. If he had commenced to speak following 1640 and if the Chair felt that time had expired, it could only have been 5 p.m.
The rules of the House call for the House to interrupt business at that time and proceed to Private Members' Business. That is what members believed would happen. That is what members on this side of the House believed would have happened, including the member for Ottawa-Vanier who had gone back to the Speaker in the Chair to verify that he would not have an opportunity to speak if the member for Windsor-St. Clair used all of

May 1, 1992
Privilege
his time. On that basis several members in this House had gone into their respective lobbies.
At 5 p.m., having interrupted the member for Windsor-St. Clair, the Chair immediately put the question. He said: "Is the House ready for the question?" He said nothing else. This surprised a number of members in the lobbies, as I understand it.
The Chair then asked if it was the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment. Members, still surprised, it being assumed we were dealing with a five o'clock interruption gave several answers which are not clear from Hansard.
The member for Carleton-Gloucester on this side of the House then rose in his place and asked the Chair if there was not a five-minute period of questions and comments now due. That is what usually occurs.
The Chair then said to that member: "I asked for questions or comments. Nobody was getting up. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?"
That, Mr. Speaker, was an incorrect statement by the Chair. I am sure it was inadvertent because the record shows clearly that the Chair did not ask for questions and comments.
I submit to you that any Speaker in the Chair would have been aware of all of which I have already said; the agreement of the House leaders, the speakers' list, the discussion with the member for Ottawa-Vanier, the point of order raised by the member for Carleton- Gloucester, and would have recognized the desire of all members to continue with the debate. In fact House business for Monday is set for the continuation of debate.
In the face of that the Chair proceeded-it must have been five o'clock, Mr. Speaker-to deal with the question and call for a vote which no member was prepared for and in fact it required an impromptu intervention in an effort to delay and defer the vote until next week.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that-


Mr. Speaker:: I have of course watched the videotape very carefully. The hon. member just said that it required
an impromptu intervention after five o'clock. Perhaps the hon. member could explain that a bit more thoroughly-


Derek Vincent Lee: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I should not have used the word impromptu. It was certainly an event which had not been foreseen by anyone and I might refer it to as ad hoc. The rules of the House provide for the deferral of a vote, but this was a vote that had matured because in my view of the determination of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very, very carefully. I cannot speak for some of the events that the hon. member has put forward which would be conversations between the speaker and the Chair, but I have watched the tape very closely and I just wanted to be absolutely certain on this. The hon. member is instructing me and is putting forward as the facts that the vote was called, the members were called in, and as I understand it, the Whip then asked for a deferment of the vote.
Is that the event to which the hon. member is referring, the impromptu intervention? I was not aware of any further intervention as a point of order.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, it was not a point of order. It was simply what is sometimes a routine request by the government to defer the taking of a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand now and I thank you for it.
I wonder if I could hear the hon. government House leader. Then I shall return to other members.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Scarborough who has raised this question of privilege is right in the sense that we did anticipate the debate on second reading of this bill would go on to Monday, and indeed from the government's perspective we were operating on that basis.
I was as surprised as anybody else when the votes were taken at five o'clock. I have examined the tapes and have watched what happened. I looked at Hansard and it seems pretty clear what happened. The opposition was asleep at the switch.
May 1, 1992

The Speaker heard the member for Windsor-St. Clair speak. There was no protest from the member for Windsor-St. Clair about being cut off so he assumed the time was done. He then asked whether the House was ready for the question. I listened. There is nothing in Hansard about any protest from any members. There are no points of order. Things proceeded in a routine fashion and when the second reading debate was held there were five members.
It appears that a lot of people like yours truly were watching the Ontario budget on television. That notwithstanding, we have a decision of the House which says there will be a deferred vote on this bill on Monday.
There was no ambush here. There was no collusion. There was nothing untoward. As I say, basically from my perspective the opposition was asleep at the switch.
However, what I would like to propose is that we agree to a House order that might say the following:
That, notwithstanding any order of this House, on Monday, May 4, 1992 the House allow further debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies, provided that no further amendments be allowed and that deferred division to dispose of second reading of said bill be taken no later than 6 p.m. that day.
I think I heard hon. members say that they anticipated, the Liberal Party anyway, two days of debate. I believe the New Democratic Party House leader would agree that there was agreement for two days of debate. I think this provides the extra opportunity for the debate to occur and I think this is the proper resolution to this issue.
Otherwise we end up with a long and involved discussion about who said what to whom, when in fact if we look at the record in Hansard and at a replay of what occurred on television it was very clear that there were no points of order. There was no protest at the time to anything that occurred and what happened was a natural, normal thing with people not being here.
I think this is the resolution and I would commend it to the House for its consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. Then I will come to the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair again, if that is necessary.
Privilege


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make seven points.
The first point: I have reviewed Hansard, which I am sure the Chair has done and the Table has done. I am certain the Chair has taken the time to review the electronic recording of our proceedings. I am sure it will note that the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair started his debate after 4.40 p.m. yesterday. The tapes will show that the member was still speaking when the Chair interrupted. There is no way then that the House was still on government time, and therefore the question in my view should not have been put.
The second point: The Chair in putting the motion failed to ask for questions and comments. I know the Chair is paying attention, but I just want to emphasize that the Chair did not follow the proceedings, which was to ask for questions and comments.
The third point: The hon. member for Carleton- Gloucester stood in his place on a point of order and asked the Chair specifically if there was not a time for questions and answers, to which the Chair replied, and I say so with great respect, perhaps innocently that he had asked for questions and comments when in fact Hansard and the tape will show he did not ask. Others have used stronger language. I would prefer to use an innocent mistake.
The fourth point: If is was not after 5 p.m. when the Chair put the question on the amendment, it certainly was after the amendment was disposed of and he should never have proceeded with the main motion.
The fifth point: The Chair failed to ask for further debate on the main motion as indicated in Hansard and as indicated by the tape.
The sixth point: My distinguished colleague from Ottawa-Vanier will testily, if given an opportunity in these proceedings, that the Chair knew that he wished to speak after the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair. In fact the Chair and the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier agreed that since the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair said he was taking his full 20 minutes, my colleague for Ottawa-Vanier would not be able to get on before Monday. The Chair had agreed to that in discussion that they had at the table. My colleague will verify that.

May 1, 1992
Privilege
The seventh point I make is one of fairness. The rules of natural justice would suggest that one who occupies the chair for members and who is to serve members would want to be fair. I suggest that it would be terribly unfair if we were to proceed as if everything was fine in the suggestion made by the government House leader. I do not think that would be fair.
I would respectfully request that the Chair give serious consideration as to the consequences of this kind of debate and discussion on a measure which is important for the opposition as well as for all members.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the facts of yesterday are not in dispute. I would simply say it is not unusual for this member to be relatively unconscious of the length of time that he has spoken. As a matter of fact, on occasion when I have lost track of time and expressed my regret for that, someone has said I could have always looked at the calendar.
I have to enter into the debate my own observations of yesterday. I can tell you with confidence that I began to speak shortly after 4.45 p.m. At about 4.58 p.m., the Speaker exhibited a number of distracting gestures of impatience that led me to believe that in spite of the evidence of my senses I had spoken for longer than I had.
It is clear therefore I was interrupted before the completion of the time that would normally be allocated to me. The record clearly indicates that the Acting Speaker did not ask for questions or comments, that he did not call for debate, that there was objection raised but that was dismissed rather quickly and the Acting Speaker continued to put the question on the amendment and on the main motion.
I am glad to hear the hon. House leader on the government side propose a possible solution to this series of unfortunate events. I think it regrettable therefore in this context that we hear such phraseology as the opposition was asleep at the switch. Given the events and the manner in which they unfolded, there being at the time as I recall about three members in the House, it is clear that there really was no opportunity short of engaging in an unnecessary and perhaps provocative exchange with the Acting Speaker to deal with the issue as it was presented to us. We were all shocked and surprised and therefore in some degree paralysed.
However inadvertent the series of events might have been and the acceptance on our part that this was not deliberate as suggested by the House leader, because that is not our suggestion, nevertheless I think we should be conscious of the fact there has been concern from time to time that these kinds of inadvertencies have occurred with too much frequency in this House when you, Sir, are not in the chair.
I think all of us would be very much more satisfied if not only this incident is dealt with appropriately, perhaps as suggested by the leader of the government side, but that care be exercised ensuring that this kind of unnecessary intervention in the process of debate be avoided by exercising greater care on the part of who may be acting in the chair in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair and especially the tone with which he has proceeded.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, since the description given of yesterday's incident and the facts involved seems quite accurate, I will not repeat what was said by the Liberal House leader and the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair.
I myself was involved because Bill C-63 before the House is a bill that we on this side of the House feel is extremely important. I had indicated to the House around 4.30 p.m. that I wanted to speak in the debate on Bill C-63. The Speaker-and I repeat this because I want to put my experience of the facts on the record- who was in the Chair at the time, and I am referring to the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, told me that he had to recognize a member for the New Democratic Party. I agreed, because in the House it is the custom to alternate between government and opposition speakers.
I asked him at the time whether he knew if any NDP members wanted to speak. He answered: "No, I don't have any names; would you check?" I went to check, and I saw my colleague from Windsor-St. Clair. I asked him specifically whether he intended to take the floor. He said yes. I asked him whether he was going to take the full 20 minutes to which he was entitled, and he said yes.
May 1, 1992

At this point it was about 4.40 p.m. You can check the records of the clerks at the Thble. The records indicate . that it was 4.40 p.m. I had another committee meeting, so I went to this meeting because I figured: 4.40 p.m., a 20-minute speech, since the hon. member had given me the assurance he would speak for 20 minutes, and a 10-minute period for questions and comments-impossible, I would come back Monday. I went to see the Speaker and told him exactly this: Mr. Speaker, I will not be able to speak today, so I will see you Monday. He said: Have a nice weekend, Jean-Robert. Then I left and went to my committee meeting. The bells started ringing at 5.01 or 5.02, at which point we wondered what was happening.
Quite frankly, I consider that my privileges have been breached because the Chair knew that I wanted to speak and that it was impossible for me to do so yesterday, because according to the clocks there was no time left. In fact, I would also like to say something about the clocks. Look at the time. One clock says 10.29, the other clock says 10.30 and the third, 10.31. The Speaker's clock is the one that counts, I agree. But the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair was interrupted in the middle of his speech by the Chair and told his time had expired. That is impossible. According to the official record on the Thble, he started at 4.40 p.m. Now, the Speaker's clock may not show the same time as the clock used by the clerks, but the fact remains that the hon. member had 19 minutes, not 20. When the hon. member for Carleton- Gloucester rose to ask him whether there was not a period of questions and comments after a speech on second reading, the Speaker answered: I asked for questions and comments. Nobody was getting up.
We are dealing with members who take the Chair seriously. When the Speaker rises, members must take their seat. When the Speaker makes a statement, members do not usually question that statement. The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, out of respect for the Speaker, took this decision, this statement, this affirmation as a fact, as a decision by the Chair. In the Parliament of Canada, we do not question the decisions of the Chair, as you well know, Mr. Speaker. We cannot challenge them. When the government House leader
Privilege
says there was no collusion and there was nothing irregular, this is inaccurate because we never said there was collusion. We only said it was an error of judgment, a factual error, an error in time, and that in our view, a decision was made by the Chair that was misleading for the Liberal members. The hon. member for Carleton- Gloucester, out of respect for the Chair, chose to abide by that decision, which was unfortunate for us, because we lost our right to speak.
I may recall what it says in Beauchesne's, Fifth Edition:
117. The chief characteristics attached to the office of the Speaker in the House are authority and impartiality. [ -JReflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege. His actions cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except by way of a substantive motion.
As I said earlier, when the Speaker says something, we do not question what he says.
When our right to speak is restricted, when a restriction has been put on my right to speak, I say that some remedy is needed. I say there is something we must straighten out. Perhaps the Speaker's clock was not running properly yesterday or perhaps it was an oversight, but I think we have serious reasons to believe that this is a question of privilege. If this matter is not dealt with, I feel I will have to do whatever can be done to ensure that something is done about this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Ottawa- Vanier. I think that the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest is ready to speak.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because I intervene only in my new capacity as parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I was not present when this event occurred. However, I have reviewed Hansard and I have seen the television portrayal of what occurred.
I believe that there is genuine dispute as to whether the question was properly put. There is some difficulty because the Hansard and the tape cannot record agreements or undertakings that were given. We rely on each other's word in that regard and I do not believe anyone

May 1, 1992
Privilege
has suggested that any word has been broken in this instance. Nor is there a record of lists that may have been kept or of conversations with the Chair, nor is any switch at which one may or may not have been asleep in evidence. Therefore, it is unfortunate that we cannot deal with those facts.
It is clear that at least from the tape there did not appear to be anyone standing to participate in debate when the vote was called. However, I wish to reiterate that the issue before us is an issue of fairness. I agree with other speakers who have made that point. I believe that what is proposed by the government House leader is the appropriate course to follow; that the undertaking given to the other House leaders to continue the debate on Monday be followed through with and that the deferred vote be taken no later than 6 p.m. on Monday.
I am in the hands of the Chair as to whether it would be appropriate to pose such a motion. I would rather hear from the Chair before considering that action.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I had not really had an opportunity to complete my remarks when we moved on to other members. I want to point out that when I rose on this matter following Prayers at ten o'clock, in terms of Parliamentary time this incident was no older than about three to five minutes.
If one looks at Hansard, it is very clear that when the Chair called for the question, the member for Carle-ton-Gloucester rose on what he called a point of order. He was really rising to ask a question. The Chair inadverently, not realizing that he had failed to ask for questions or comments as he believed he had, did not pay attention to actually what was a request to make questions or comments. That happened within about 20 seconds. I want to focus on that timeframe. I believe that in fairness the Chair should be looking at that and recognizing that the Chair may have acted in a misinformed manner without indicating where the misinformation came from. Perhaps, even if we are talking about switches, it involved the Speaker's own clock, which he sometimes relies on in timing debates.


Mr. David Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, the events of yesterday afternoon were unfortunate
but they have happened and we are now in a position of that being recorded.
There has been a good deal of talk today about the evidence and what the evidence proves. As I listened, it occurred to me that the tape does not prove that the Chair did not ask for questions and comments, but neither is there any evidence that it did ask. There is some question about that.
Nevertheless, we are in the position in which quite a number of members wanted to carry on the debate and the government has offered a way of achieving what we all want to do. We do not want to be talking about this, we want to be talking about the issues. We want to be talking about the bill.
I have some argument about the agreement about two days. Certainly our executive was not informed that we had agreed in a House leaders meeting to a two-day debate. Neither have we disagreed. It was not decided. I understand it is not totally unusual for three House leaders to come out of that meeting with slightly different ideas as to exactly what was agreed upon in those meetings.
However, it would seem to me that taking the government House leader's suggestion and discussing the motion he proposes to move some time perhaps during Question Period or between now and Question Period among the House leaders, and coming up with a motion upon which we could all agree to cany on the debate on Monday, might be the best way of getting out of this at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members, starting with the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, have been extremely co-operative and helpful to the Chair.
First of all, I want to comment on this because I do not want any misunderstanding. I have listened very carefully to our colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vani-er, and I want him to know this.

I very well understand the concern of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier with respect to the events of yesterday afternoon.
May 1, 1992



I say that because I do not want anybody to think that the situation that happened yesterday is something that the Chair takes lightly.
I also want to comment on something else. I hope that sometimes those who are so critical of this place will note what I am saying. There has been an attempt made today, an honourable one and a helpful one, to take the position that what happened may well have been inadvertence. Under the circumstances that is helpful.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan has suggested that perhaps this matter could be delayed for a little while for further discussion with respect to whether the matter can be resolved by the suggestion of the hon. government House leader, which is to carry on the debate on Monday and to have the vote on Monday night without any further amendments.
The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest was clearly supporting the suggesting made by his own government House leader, but he did ask the Chair if its comments might help to guide the House. That is what the hon. member was reaching for. Perhaps my comments can help. At the moment I do not have to make this ruling, but I want to indicate to hon. members that it would be with some difficulty that the Chair, given what happened yesterday, could overrule a decision of the House. It would be a very difficult position to be in.
We have a suggestion now that while it does not extinguish the events of yesterday, it certainly goes a long way to meet the serious concerns that have been expressed. The hon. member Windsor-St. Clair was very helpful with the comments that he made.
I am going to put to the House the proposition of the government House leader, which the House has heard; namely, that the House Order about the debate on this bill recommence on Monday, that it proceed during the day, that there would be no further amendments and that the vote on the main motion would take place at six p.m. That is the proposition which is, in my view, presently before the House and I would like to hear comment on that.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed but one has to come to understand certain realities with regard to this institution. Members on this side of the House have indicated to the Chair the fact that there probably was some inadvertence; an honest mistake. I am seeking guidance from the Chair. The Chair has indicated that a
Privilege
decision has been made properly in this House. Not notwithstanding that, the Chair is not inclined to overrule that decision.
Now the Chair wishes to put before the House a government suggestion on a motion that we terminate the debate at six o'clock on Monday.
That is what the Chair has now suggested to us; to continue with the debate on Monday and terminate the debate on second reading of the main motion at six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate very much to interrupt the hon. leader, but I am only putting to the House the suggestion of the government House leader. It is not my suggestion. If that is not acceptable, there may have to be further discussions.
I hope it is not misunderstood. I am not ordering that. I am saying that there is a suggestion on the floor of the House and I am seeking the advice of the House on whether it should be accepted.


David Charles Dingwall: Perhaps the Chair could indicate to the House, since the Chair services the members in this House, as to whether the suggestion which is being put forward by my colleagues opposite is fair and appropriate in view of what the Chair has viewed in Hansard, from what it has heard on the tape and from the interventions which have been made by members of this House.
Does the Chair believe that to be an appropriate remedy in view of those facts?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may be putting the Chair in some difficulty.
I am trying to respond to the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest. I am trying to assist the House. I have not ruled this. I am suggesting that under the circumstances it would be very difficult for a Speaker to rule that what happened yesterday was not a decision of the House.
If that is the dilemma that the Speaker would be in, if the Speaker had to proceed to make that ruling, and I am doing this only to be helpful, then one seeks another resolution of this so that this can be dealt with as fairly as possible.
I am cognizant of the fact that I have been instructed today that there was at least an arrangement, an understanding, between the members of the Official Opposition and the government that it would be a two-day debate.

May 1, 1992
Privilege


An hon. member:: A minimum of having two days.


Mr. Speaker:: Have I misunderstood that?


David Charles Dingwall: Yes, you have.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry. I will hear the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


David Charles Dingwall: I would like to clarify that.
The hon. member, when he made reference to two days, was under the impression that it was to be for at least two days because of the comments which were made by the government House leader and the fact that the bill was going to be called for Monday's debate.
There was no agreement by House leaders. Let me be perfectly clear. There was no agreement by House leaders that Thursday was going to be the end of the debate or Monday was going to be the end of the debate. There was no agreement by me and, it is safe to say, by my colleague from the New Democratic Party nor from the government.
We have clearly indicated that there was no agreement that it would be a two-day debate. Let us not have any illusions as to the fact that there was some agreement in the works behind the scenes with regard to a two-day debate.
I want to tell the Chair that on this side of the House there are in excess of 40 members who wish to participate in the debate on this particular bill. I do not want to go through all of the facts which have been put before the Chair.
Does the Chair think it appropriate and fair that we accept a government offer in terms of the debate of this particular bill in the House when the Chair knows, has read and has clearly seen the unfairness of the way in which we proceeded yesterday?
Does the Chair think that is an appropriate option?


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I have thanked hon. members for the tone with which this difficult matter has been dealt.
I ask hon. members to understand the position that a Speaker is in given this difficult circumstance. I have indicated that it would be veiy difficult for a Speaker to say that what happened yesterday did not happen.
Whether I think what the government has proposed to the House is fair or otherwise is not for me to say. It is for the House to say.
What I am saying is if we are to find a resolution of this, then it is advisable for hon. members to take the caveat of the Speaker, which has just been given, that the resolution is probably going to have to be found. I am not absolute on this but it is probably going to have to be found by some kind of consensus in the House.
The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest can clarify this, but if there is the proposition on the floor of the House by the government House leader for the House's acceptance of his suggestion, then it can be dealt with. It can either be accepted or it can be rejected. If it is rejected, then I shall have to consider the matter further. Or hon. members may be able to discuss with each other a solution to it. I want to get that clarified.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity-
Having some bit of detachment from the issue, not having been in the House at the time but having had a chance to listen to the argument, I appreciate the quality of the argument we have had here today. My opinion is that there may have been inadvertence on all parts. I do not wish to escalate the debate at all, but I believe it is necessary to put one point forward. If in excess of 40 members were seeking to intervene, why did not one rise to participate in the debate yesterday?
That notwithstanding, I wish to honour the spirit of the undertaking that was given among the House leaders and I believe that the suggestion of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan is a useful one. I can indicate to the hon. opposition House leader that the government is prepared to discuss the possibility of some extension of hours on Monday, if that would be helpful, and that the six o'clock time for the deferred division need not be set in stone.
It would be very useful to have an opportunity to discuss these matters perhaps during Question Period or as soon as it is convenient and perhaps to get on to other business of the House in the interim.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, what happened yesterday is the object of a question of privilege by the member for Scarborough-Rouge River. That was the first question that we addressed here at ten o'clock. We do not for a
May 1, 1992

moment want to get involved in a debate here on the parliamentary solution between House leaders as to what can be done in terms of a decision by the House, not by the Speaker.
That is very dangerous for us to start negotiating on the floor of the House. When I hear members on the government side making proposals and then changing and modifying their proposals-one additional day on Monday and then extension of hours on Monday-goodness knows what can happen. Then we are going to get involved and it is going to be eleven o'clock and then there will be a problem procedurally.
I want to make it very clear that the question at hand is that yesterday's events in our view were not appropriate in terms of procedure, time constraints and fairness to the opposition side. That is our point.
We are saying to the Chair that there was a question put by the member for Carleton-Gloucester-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to be arbitrary here. I have listened carefully to the facts. There may be some dispute among members as to what was or what was not said or otherwise, but the facts seem to be relatively clear.
I am not saying for one moment there has not been a question of privilege raised. I am saying that in the midst of it, the House has heard a suggestion by the government which would, if accepted, at least have this debate proceed on Monday.
It may be that the House wants to discuss with the government whether Monday is sufficient or whether there should be a longer time. If that is what is desired by hon. members, then it seems to me appropriate that the discussion take place and hon. members return to the Chair if they have some advice to give me.
The question of privilege, if there is a motion moved, remains with me to deal with. It is not the same issue, it is a second issue. I am trying to assist the House to at least get the debate on again if that is what hon. members want.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I want to address that point. That is what I was trying to address.
If you have to rule as to whether there was a prima facie case of privilege yesterday, we maintain on this side there was such a situation yesterday. It meets with all
Privilege
the rules, regulations, interpretations and historical values of this House.
The member for Carleton-Gloucester rose in his seat and said to the Chair: "Is there not a ten-minute questions and comments period after a speech?" The Chair said it had asked for those questions, which is not what the record shows. There has inadvertently been a mistake which impinged on the privilege of the House which hurt our right to speak.
This is all we have to do here. That is what we are paid to do, for God's sake. We are to debate things and in terms of my privileges and the privileges of members of this caucus, we were yesterday taken for a ride because we were not given that privilege. Nobody asked for debate.
I say to the member from Edmonton that nobody asked. The Speaker he did not say debate. He asked if the House was ready for the question. We were not ready for that question.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this very important question of privilege is being confused in an exchange of you said, I said, we said about private arrangements that are necessary to keep this House going. It would seem to me that any discussion at this particular moment about arrangements between the government and the opposition or the other parties in the House would be out of order at this point.
We are making an appeal to the chair specifically on a point of privilege. I am surprised we would even raise the point that such negotiations would be a part of a point of privilege.
I want to make it very clear that when the Chair feels it has heard all of the evidence on the making of a prima facie case about a matter of privilege, it will inform the House that it has heard that evidence and will, in its wisdom, deal with that evidence. At the same time I do not think the House should be burdened by our own lack of communication or some of it by using the Chair for that communication.
If the Chair became involved in that kind of communication, it would only diminish its role in dealing with a matter of privilege.
The matter of privilege is one of great substance, great importance, and I would urge the Chair not to entertain any discussion at all about arrangements between the parties except to encourage that they do that efficiently, gentlemanly and with some sense of urgency, while at

May 1, 1992
the same time appreciating the very great urgency all of us feel about the Speaker's action yesterday; separating the two points and keeping them separate.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I stress the following two facts. One is that the prima facie case of privilege in my view has been established. The privilege of those who are here today to speak on this bill, who were here yesterday and who may not be available to speak on Monday, would be broken if a time limit were imposed. Therefore the situation as it stood yesterday until five o'clock, namely a debate without time limit, ought to be restored.
Second, in full appreciation of the position of the Chair, it seems to me that your attention has to be drawn once again to the fact, as recorded at page 9945, that the Acting Speaker yesterday at five o'clock failed to ask the question "are there any comments or questions". Elis intervention, as recorded, created the impression for hon. members present in the House that he had actually asked the question.


Mr. Bellemare:: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in courtesy to the Chair, I took the decision of the Chair as being final. However, I did feel that I had not been given an opportunity to comment during the five minute question period and that the Chair at that point proceeded anyway.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to conclude debate on this matter, except I am coming back to the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River. I take it I will have a motion from the hon. member. The hon. member should rise and read that motion. Is the hon. member prepared to move the appropriate motion? Without it I am left with nothing.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am of course prepared to move a motion articulating the breach of privilege I just put to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. I shall do the best I can with it.
It being 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31


Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Madam Speaker, I would draw the attention of the House to an important initiative of the federal government that was announced yesterday. It is Tree Plan Canada, a national community tree-planting program that will give Canadians the opportunity to make their own contribution to solving environmental problems.
The national launch of this program will be followed by regional events as part of National Trees and Forests Week, May 3 to 9. Tree Plan Canada, a forestry program of Canada's green plan, will show the practical and environmental benefits of planting trees.
This program gives Canadians a chance to become familiar with their forest heritage and also help improve our environment, for which we all have a great responsibility. Tree Plan Canada encourages various associations and organizations to work together in partnership on tree-planting projects.
Tree Plan Canada is the second forestry program of the green plan. In September 1991, the federal government announced the Partners for Sustainable Forest Development Program, which is in three main parts: model forests, the improvement-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester has the floor.


TRIBUTE TO ERIC VOVAN
Eugène Bellemare: Madam Speaker, what a fine victory for Canada.
A French Canadian from Ontario, yes, Ontario, won first prize in the world French spelling dictation competition held at the United Nations in New York on April 11.
Eric Vovan of Gloucester in my riding did all of Canada proud. He also brought honour to Ontario's French-language school system and the teachers in Ottawa area schools, like Pauline Vanier Primary School, De La Salle Secondary School and the University of Ottawa. He is a credit to the organizers of French
May 1, 1992

competitions in Ontario and their founder, Dr. Robert Gauthier.
I say congratulations and thanks to Mr. Vovan, a Franco-Ontarian. I also congratulate Quebec on coming second in this prestigious world competition.


NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):: Madam Speaker, this week is National Volunteer Week. Each year more than 13 million Canadians volunteer their time and talents to help others.
I would like to take this opportunity to make special mention and extend my sincere thanks and gratitude to the many volunteers who take part in Revenue Canada Taxation's community volunteer programs.
The program, now in its 21st year, links volunteers with people who for one reason or another have difficulty completing their income tax returns. In my riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton, well over 1,000 people have been assisted by approximately 75 volunteers. Last year over 8,000 volunteers helped more than 200,000 people.
All indications are that this year our program will be even bigger. None of this would be possible without the generous spirit of our Canadian volunteers.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, when the Prime Minister took office on that now infamous day in 1984, he promised jobs, jobs, jobs.
When the Prime Minister launched the free trade initiative, he promised prosperity and economic development for all. Reality is far removed from Conservative promises.
In 1992 unemployment hovers at 10 to 11 per cent nationally and is not projected to decline over the next year. Even worse, unemployment in my riding of Kingston and the Islands, according to the most recent Canada Employment Centre statistics lurks at the oppressive rate of 13.3 per cent.
Where are the jobs? Where is the prosperity? It is nowhere to be found. They were but hollow promises of
Conservative hucksters. In the next election the people of Canada and the people of Kingston and the Islands will remember this government's legacy: "No jobs, no jobs, no jobs".


YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Madam Speaker, the issue of Macedonia has become a source of disquiet and great concern for Canadians of Greek origin. This is only natural since for many of my constituents the issue of Macedonia is not a simple matter of name but a fundamental element of their Hellenic culture and history.
According to the historical record, the Macedonia "republic" of Yugoslavia only came into existence in 1944.

I am well aware that this issue is not easy. I also know that the Minister of External Affairs is following the whole situation and Canadians of Greek origin trust the minister and her officials.
As I often say, when I was studying Greek in my student years, Macedonia certainly was a name found in my books of Greek literature.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, failed justice has once again ignited the flammable tinder box of racism and social injustice in America.
We must deplore the violence displayed by those of all colours in Los Angeles, but we must also recognize that a jury's racist conclusion, that the frightful reality of our senses was a delusionary image, was just one of many possible sparks to an explosion inevitable among those kept poor, alienated and excluded from the American dream.
Theirs has been a nightmare of denial by an ethic of greed, privilege and the hedonistic pursuit of wealth by the few at the expense of fairness, equity and justice for the many.

May 1, 1992
Canada is not free of racism. It is not free of injustice. But thank God Canada is not America. Let us be warned that the pursuit of a Reaganite or Bush agenda could make us so. If we are to pursue a social and economic level playing field, let Canada be the standard, not America.

f Translation]


GROUPE ENTRAIDE BENEVOLE EMILIE-GAMELIN
Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, National Volunteer Week is a very good time to reflect on the tremendous contribution of volunteers to Canadian society. Many programs and services that our country depends on are supported by volunteers. Volunteerism is an essential force in community life and enriches practically all aspects of our society.
For this reason, I would like to mention in particular the work done by an organization in Joliette, the Groupe entraide benevole Emilie-Gamelin. The purpose of this group is to care for seniors in their homes so that they can remain there longer instead of living in an institution. The services provided by this group go from meal preparation to household maintenance.
The Groupe entraide benevole Emilie-Gamelin exists only because of the hard work of its volunteers, and I ask the people of my riding to give enthusiastic support to the work these men and women do for our senior citizens.


CLERGY FOR A UNITED CANADA
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, it is with pride that I rise today to recognize the efforts of a true leader in the community of Ottawa South as we strive to affirm the ties that make this a united country.
Rabbi Reuven Bulka of the Congregation Machzikei Hadas has called upon his fellow clergy across all denominations to make a firm statement in favour of Canada.
The initiative called "Clergy for a United Canada" has to date received support from over 4,350 members of the clergy from across Canada, including 446 from the province of Quebec.
These individuals have signed a declaration calling upon the constitutional participants to make national unity their first priority. The Clergy for a United Canada has also adopted the use of a common prayer, asking for God's guidance that we will preserve the goodiness that is Canada.
On behalf of my colleagues, I salute the efforts of Rabbi Bulka and his fellow clergy and join them in their prayer that God will grant us the wisdom to succeed.


VOLUNTEERISM
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, to mark Volunteer Week which ends tomorrow, our Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the member for Bellechasse, rightly said: "It is well known that volunteerism keeps many organizations going and makes a major contribution to the Canadian economy."
I too would like to thank personally all the people of Abitibi who make our region and this great country better with their volunteer work.


THE HOLOCAUST
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, this week marked a day on the Jewish calendar designated Yom Hasoah Vehagvurah, the Holocaust remembrance day. It is a reminder of when, just after Passover in 1943, the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto, sick and starving as they were, rose up against their Nazi oppressors, battling them for 42 days until the ghetto was liquidated.
The uprising remains a profound testimony to the strength of human spirit and the bravery of those fighters who were determined to die unconquered. This same strength of spirit was shared by six million Jews, including one million children, who were murdered at the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators. This day also
May 1, 1992

gives us another special moment to say of the Holocaust, of the Shoah and its legacy of hate "never again".
As we begin shaping a united Canada for the next 125 years, let us make the fight against racism, xenophobia and intolerance part of the Canadian fabric by sharing our many wonderful and diverse cultures, languages and traditions. In so doing, we can rekindle that sense of common purpose which will guide Canadians in that most noble of endeavours, building a strong, united, democratic Canada for all our children and grandchildren.


ONTARIO BUDGET
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, yesterday's Ontario budget increased the provincial income tax rate from 53 to 55 per cent, effectively cancelling out for Ontario residents the federal budget reduction in personal income taxes. So much for stimulating consumer spending and creating jobs by cutting taxes.
The same thing happened in 1988 when our government cut federal income taxes and the then Peterson government in Ontario nullified the cut by raising provincial income taxes.
This should be a lesson for all those who advocate further decentralization and even greater powers for provincial governments in our current constitutional discussions. Diametrically opposite federal and provincial fiscal policies like those announced in Ontario yesterday could very well produce economic chaos in our country.


LITERACY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian Task Force on Literacy estimated that illiteracy in Canadian workers costs Canadian businesses $4 billion a year in lost revenues.
The Economic Council of Canada, which will be axed by Bill C-63, urges governments, employers and schools to co-ordinate their efforts to eliminate functional
illiteracy and better prepare young people for productive employment.
The federal government must provide leadership if Canada's 28 per cent illiteracy rate is to be reduced by the year 2000. School dropouts, functionally illiterate adults and immigrants need accessible community learning centres and trained tutors and counselling services.
I urge the government to increase funding to expand community programs and on the job learning opportunities. The National Literacy Secretariat should be expanded to assist governments to achieve the goals outlined by the Economic Council of Canada.
An investment in literacy must be a top priority to achieve a more productive Canada.


ONTARIO BUDGET
Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Ontario NDP presented its budget. I note that Ontario is attempting to address its deficit problem and is working toward expenditure restraint.
Bob Rae has a long way to go. It is a measure of how badly managed the Ontario finances are when a treasurer can peddle a $10 billion deficit and a $1 billion increase in new taxes as a triumph of fiscal balance.
My constituents are disappointed in the personal income tax increases. The NDP essentially is taxing back the personal income tax benefits in the recent federal budget. Once again the NDP is focusing on government expenditure to stimulate job creation.
The socialists say: "Spend $9 billion over four years and create 90,000 jobs". Would it be fair to ask how many jobs are lost when $1.1 billion annually is taken out of taxpayers' pockets?


CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, February 5, 1992 I presented two petitions to the House in relation to the death of Nina de Villiers.
The disappearance and tragic deaths of four young ladies in my area and the immediate neighbouring cities

May 1, 1992
Oral Questions
have spread fear and concern about the safety of citizens in our cities, and more particularly the safety of young women who have become victims of violent crimes.
Today we mourn the loss of another bright, young student of St. Catharines. The body of Kristen French who has been missing for two weeks, a student at Holy Cross High School, has been found and there are suggestions that she may have died violently. I am sure that all members would want to join with me in extending our heartfelt sympathies to the surviving French family.
I urge the Minister of Justice to consider using the resources of the federal government to complement the efforts of the provincial and regional authorities to restore peace and safety in our region.


SUDBURY
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, all Canadians congratulate the people of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury on the announcement that our municipality has been selected as one of the 12 finalists in the honours program of the UNCED Local Government Honours Program.
The presentation will take place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on June 3, 1992. The region is also one of five winners of the 1992 Chevron conservation awards in the United States.
There is no doubt that Sudbury has earned this honour. The revitalization program started in the late 1970s when laid-off workers were employed in projects to plant grass and seedlings on the moonscape of the Sudbury region.
This project involved local, provincial and federal governments, as well as local mining companies and post-secondary institutions. We all share the pride of the people of the Sudbury region in having been recognized for their efforts to refurbish the environment which previous logging and mining practices had destroyed.
The people of the Sudbury region fully deserve this distinction for their efforts in environmental restoration.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister.
We understand that the Prime Minister is travelling in western Canada. Looking at his program, it is photo op, photo op, photo op, photo op, photo op.
I would like to know from the Minister of Finance if he has informed the Prime Minister that there are 13,000 people unemployed in Williams Lake, representing 14 per cent of the population of this district. In Dawson Creek and the Chetwynd district 8,000 people are unemployed, representing 12.4 per cent of the population. In Kamloops, a city that was so prosperous some years ago, there are 10,000 people unemployed today, representing almost 17 per cent of the population.
I would like to know from the Deputy Prime Minister if this government realizes that the people there are not looking for photo opportunities. They are looking for job opportunities and they need these jobs right now.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member would share the view that the economy of British Columbia is probably one of the stronger economies in Canada at the present time.
It too has been affected by the world-wide slowdown, by low commodity prices. It is primarily a resource based economy, particularly the communities to which my hon. friend refers. Those communities are largely dependent upon the resource sector.
There has been price depression, but I can assure the hon. member that we have taken initiatives in the budget to improve the competitive position of Canada and to put in place the fundamentals so that interest rates continue to come down. They have come down and they are staying down. There has been a moderation of interest rates of over 7 per cent since the high of 1990. Those sectors to which I referred earlier are interest rate sensitive.
May 1, 1992

Oral Questions
We have also provided incentives to stimulate the housing sector. We have provided incentives to improve the competitiveness of the manufacturing and processing sector. That is where the jobs are created.
I think my hon. friend will be encouraged by the fact that there seems to be a pick up in the United States. The secretary of the treasury indicated at the G-7 meetings this past week that he is convinced the U.S. economy has turned the corner.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, it is not an answer the minister is giving us; it is an excuse.
I would like the Prime Minister while travelling to show some seriousness. We saw him this morning wearing some cowboy boots, trying to show off, when we know that he is more comfortable in Gucci slippers. The Prime Minister should know that real western cowboys know the bull when they see it.
I would like to know from this minister when the government will get serious, stop these photo opportunities at the expense of the taxpayers, and deal with the problem that this nation faces today with 1.5 million people unemployed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition were serious when he posed his question it would command a serious response.
Notwithstanding that fact, I will respond in a serious manner because he knows and understands that not only Canada is experiencing a slowdown. The IMF has adjusted downward the growth of the G-7 countries to 1.7 per cent, coming out of a very slow and weak period in the world economy. That certainly does not augur well for stimulating the activity here in Canada, because Canada is indeed a trade dependent nation.
We are part of the world global trading community. We obviously have to be there to ensure that we can participate in a competitive way when things pick up.
The budget that I brought down in February is a budget that does provide the framework for improving our competitiveness, for job creation, a continuation of the macroeconomic policy of sustained growth with price stability, containment of inflation, containment of inflationary expectations and fiscal consolidation. That is the policy that will work.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance can say all he wants, but some people in Canada are not working. What are the mayor of Williams Lake, the mayor of Kamloops and the mayor of Montreal asking the Minister of Finance for now? Something quite simple: a program where the federal government would pay a third, the provincial governments would pay a third and they would be ready to start tomorrow by paying another third to put hundreds and thousands of Canadians to work.
Why does the Minister of Finance not grant the wish of these people who want to put Canadians to work and revive the Canadian economy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the difference between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition is that the Prime Minister is out meeting and discussing the very fundamental and important issues of the Canadian economy with the people themselves, not chirping away here in Ottawa from on high as if he had all the answers.
The fact of the matter, very simply put, is that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is asking this government to impose a $3 billion tax burden on the backs of Canadians. They are not prepared for that today.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, a constituent of the Minister of Finance gave me some indications of what his policy is doing across the minister's own constituency this morning.
MacLeod's store in Vegreville, as the minister knows, closed about two months ago. The News Advertiser in Vegreville is full of ads for farm auctions, close-out auctions. Renn-Vertec, a 15-year old grain drier manufacturer in Vermilion, closed down a year ago putting a hundred people out of work. Septre Resources closed its Vegreville office three months ago. The Federal Student Employment Program, which used to employ in the county of Vegreville about a dozen students, now can employ only two. When will the minister get the point? What will he tell his constituents about what his fight

Oral Questions
inflation only, his high interest and his high dollar policies are doing to them?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I do not have to be lectured by the hon. member who probably has never visited Vegreville, at least on a regular basis as I do every weekend. I do not have to be lectured by him. I go back there every weekend and I speak to the people.
Yes, times are difficult, but the fact of the matter is that this government has taken a very important initiative in building with the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta a heavy oil upgrader that will provide not only job opportunities and improved operating conditions for the oil sector but will particularly provide security of supply. We have supported agriculture in an unprecedented fashion, probably about $30 billion of direct support to the agricultural community in very difficult times.
What we have done in the budget is improve the competitiveness and the investment opportunities for the manufacturing and processing sector. I am sure the hon. member is aware that in Alberta today 25 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product is derived from manufacturing and processing. That is where the jobs are created. That is where the economic activity can be created. That is where the opportunities lie and that is what we are addressing.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact I bought my cowboy boots in Vegreville, and I hope that store is still open.
Statistics Canada says that there have been almost 5,000 consumer and business bankruptcies in western Canada. Canadian mining companies are expected to invest about $750 million in Chile by 1994 because of a more favourable climate, and 800,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry have been lost since 1985.
When will the minister get the point? The government's deflationary policies are wreaking havoc in every comer of this country except in the banking sector.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member would like to see this government reimpose the National Energy Program. That is what he has been advocating for quite some time.
The government removed the constraints in the energy sector by removing the burden of taxes on the energy
sector: the PGRT, the incremental oil revenue tax, the natural gas and gas liquid tax, and the Canadian ownership charge. All those taxes were a legacy of the Liberal government and the Liberal Party of which he is a member.
Yes, look around the world and find that rationalization has taken place in the United States and other places. Commodity prices have come down. That is very true.
I remind the hon. member that this government took a leap of faith in investing very heavily in the heavy oil upgrader which provides opportunities for the future and not only security of supply.


BEER INDUSTRY
David Barrett: Madam Speaker, my question relates to not only existing job losses but the potential job losses that are looming because this government does not seem to be firm enough in dealing with trade issues.
My question for the Minister for International Trade, or whoever is speaking for international trade today, is about the decision by GATT which says that the United States has indeed been subsidizing American breweries to the threat of 18,000 brewery workers in Canada.
The United States has agreed that the GATT panel ruling is correct and has sent a spin-out to press suggesting that it will correct the problem of subsidies by the middle of June, that is next month.
I want to ask the government if it has received a letter from the U.S. state department confirming that it is the U.S. government's position to meet next June as a deadline for eliminating these subsidies and that all the states involved and all the breweries involved will put in writing that they too agree with this decision. If not, words will not mean anything.


Hon. Tom Hockiu (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I had a little trouble discerning a question in all that. Let me respond to the hon. member's remarks on the GATT panel decision on the U.S. barriers against beer. This particular announcement of yesterday is very good news for us. It confirms what we have argued, which is that they have a number of barriers against exports of Canadian beer, a number of barriers against Canadian exports of wine. As a matter of
May 1, 1992

fact, there are over 60 different barriers to trade in 39 different states. We have fought this protectionism in the GATT context. We have prevailed and the panel has confirmed that.
In June the U.S. will be formally responding, but it is going to have to respond in a way which will deal with the questions posed by the hon. member and the criticisms we have brought to the GATT panel.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, no one is disputing that GATT has proven what this government and other governments have said before. The GATT panel has clearly stated that the U.S. is in violation.
What I am asking the minister is not further talk from the United States. I ask the minister this specific question: Has the government received, in writing, confirmation that the United States Government will act according to this panel's ruling by the middle of next month and order the states and order the breweries to comply with this ruling?
Thlk is one thing. I want to know if this government has received in writing a commitment from the United States to meet the June deadline.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I share with the hon. member his impatience that we should get that sort of communication, but he has to know how GATT works. There are these milestones, They are all voluntary milestones. He does not really care how it works. The GATT procedures are there as voluntary complying milestones.
What we expect in June is that the whole range of criticisms made by the GATT panel will be agreed to by the U.S. If it will not, we will take our retaliatory steps.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, this is only the tip of the foam, so to speak. The reality is that the minister has now admitted that this government does not have a firm position, saying that he hopes the United States will voluntarily comply. It has not voluntarily complied on one single dispute to
Oral Questions
this date. Since we signed the free trade agreement, it has even snubbed its nose more at this government.
There are 18,000 jobs involved here. I am asking the minister to tell the Canadian people that this government will insist, in writing, from the U.S. administration right now that it intends to comply or else tell the Americans: "The agreement you made last week is no longer valid. Either put up or shut up". Waiting for conversation is only going to drive people to drink and it will be American beer not Canadian beer if this government does not take some action.


An hon. member:: Spoken like a true expert on beer.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, this strutting and fretting that the hon. member is going through is all very impressive. I can assure him that the Canadian government will pin the U.S. down on all of these matters. As a matter of fact, it is very much in their interest to co-operate because they have a panel finding into Canada which means they have an incentive to comply.
The hon. member mentions how important it is to tell the Americans what to do in this particular case. He has been telling the House of Commons, month after month, how useless it is to have a free trade agreement. We have, in fact, backing up the GATT panels and the GATT resolution mechanisms, also another dispute settlement mechanism we can use when we have disputes with the United States. Already we have had 18 dispute panels with the U.S. We have won nine and we have lost nine. We have equality with the U.S. whenever we have a dispute, even though we are one tenth the size of their economy.
Therefore, we now have additional resources to use against the U.S. when disputes like this occur.


FORESTRY
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday in Chetwynd, B.C. the Prime Minister announced a $75 million beautification with trees program for communities across Canada, but nothing for the silvicultural industry.

May 1, 1992
Oral Questions
Last year when the forest resource development agreements were renewed, B.C.'s was reduced from $300 million to $200 million; Ontario's from $30 million to $12 million.
As a result, 150 million seedlings will not be planted this year. This is obscene. Will the minister initiate talks immediately with his provincial counterparts in order to rectify this situation?


Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred to the fact that yesterday in Chetwynd, the Prime Minister announced funding totalling $75 million in new money for reforestation, the so-called beautification with trees program.
I think that Ontario, like all Canadian provinces, will benefit handsomely as a result of this new funding which is in addition to the reforestation program agreements already signed with the provinces.
I may remind the hon. member that under the Constitution, management of natural resources is a strictly provincial responsibility, and that the federal government, through the Department of Forestry, is doing more than its fair share to help the provinces deal with problems relating to reforestation and research and development.
I think the hon. member will acknowledge that the efforts of the Minister of Forestry in this respect have been considerable and that those efforts are continuing.


Réginald Bélair: Madam Speaker, the silviculture industry in Canada will find little solace in the hon. member's answer, especially at a time when all forest reports indicate that we are seriously lagging behind in reforestation, especially at a time when thousands of workers will be laid off again, especially at a time when Canadians are demanding that reforestation be made a priority.
Will the government financially support its sustainable development policy and fully restore the reforestation program?


Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, again, the hon. member will recall that in early March, the Canadian Council of Forestry Ministers, together with environmental groups, the industry and all parties with a stake in the development of our forests, met here in Ottawa. There was a common front to support sustainable development, and furthermore, the federal forestry department is committed to a number of agreements, including one in British Columbia, where the hon. member says there is a reforestation problem. In B.C., the number of trees being planted now exceeds the number being cut. Another example is Quebec, where, after the initial reforestation program, we are now going to maintain the trees that have been planted.
I think the government is doing a great deal, and once again, I would like to remind the hon. member that although the funding available may not be adequate in every respect, we are working very hard with the provinces to provide programs that will help deal with most of these problems and make Canada's forests productive and competitive on all markets.


BEER INDUSTRY
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Madam Speaker, with reference to the GATT rulings on beer, the minister knows very well that there have been two rulings: one is a ruling affecting Canadian exports of beer to the United States and the other is American beer exported to Canada.
Can the government state clearly today that Canadian brewers will have equal access to the U.S. market and on the same date that U.S. brewers will gain free access to the Canadian market?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, in reality what we want is far better than what the hon. member is asking for.
Can he just follow this logic. Let us say at present, roughly we have 1 per cent of the U.S. beer market. If we doubled our access to the U.S. beer market to 2 per cent that would be, if he wants to check his figures, 60 million more cases of beer exported into the U.S. from Canada than with 1 per cent of the market.
May 1, 1992

If the U.S. doubled its exports into the Canadian market, which is now about 3 per cent, and doubled it to 6 per cent, it would have 12 million additional cases.
What we want to accomplish is the same access to the U.S. as it has to Canada which would give us five times more exports than it would have into Canada.


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, surely the minister does not regard that as a serious answer to a serious question.
Let me ask the minister this. In light of the GATT rulings, the government has stated that it is seeking to remove interprovincial trade barriers in the beer industry by 1993. That is just one sector where interprovincial trade barriers are a major impediment to Canada's competitiveness internationally. Can the minister indicate the government's commitment today to ensure all interprovincial trade barriers are removed so Canada in a global trading world can compete effectively?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member wants us to discipline the Canadian context. Of course, we will work toward what he is asking for which is the removal of interprovincial barriers.
More important, here is what we are working for through access to the U.S. We are going to do away with discriminatory tax measures which favour local beers in 39 different states in the U.S. We are going to do away with discriminatory distribution practices in 22 different states in the U.S. We are going to do away with discriminatory licence fees. We are going to do away with our practice of exempting locally produced wines from decisions to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages in a number of their states. We are going to do away with a whole number of discriminatory pricing practices that exist in the U.S. That is the great news of yesterday's panel decision.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
The recent GATT beer ruling again draws attention to the very large subsidies and general level of market and trade interference that takes place at the state level in the United States.
Given that Canada-U.S. trade negotiations began seven years ago and the current three country negotiations three years ago, can the minister explain why no department of this government has yet produced a report on the full extent of American agricultural subsidization at the state and federal levels?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, it is a good question. I want to assure the hon. member, and I think he is aware of this, that while I occupied the position of Minister of Agriculture we did take steps to do a complete and thorough analysis of at least a number of the more important agriculture states to determine the level of support and the way in which that support was provided to the producers so we could get a better assessment of the kind of support that was being provided and whether it had a distortive effect on the competitive position.
I am sure the hon. member understands this is more complex than we had originally thought. I believe the first interim report that was provided by the consulting company required that additional work had to be done. I expect there will be that compilation completed very soon. I will check and get back to the hon. member with a precise date.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, the current Minister of Agriculture has left the impression that his department does not have the ability nor the capacity to do such investigations and has long after the fact received the report of Hill and Knowlton to which the Deputy Prime Minister referred.
There is another study going on under the aegis of the Canadian Grains Council which should have been reported three or four months ago but we are still waiting for it.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why his government cannot find within its own departments the capability of doing such work or our trade in agriculture irritants has such a low priority they have to go outside the country to find these bits of information.

May 1, 1992
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, no they are not a low priority. The fact we have undertaken such a study is clear evidence of the fact. There are a number of supports that are quite clearly evident, there are others that require further work. For example, the CITT assessment of the fruit industry identified the kind of measures of support that puts Canadian fruit producers at a competitive disadvantage. It is a complex issue.
It is quite true as I said, the initial report from Hill and Knowlton has been provided. My understanding is further work is being done. It is important to clearly identify the kind and level of programs and support systems that are in place and it is equally important to maintain a timely and updated data base and that is exactly what we have been trying to do.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the acting Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. Yesterday I asked the government to implement strict environmental regulations in order to create a strong domestic market as an incentive to develop new environmental technologies. The minister's answer was just to mention a small program and wash his hands of the matter.
Why does the government want Canada to be content with always importing technology from others instead of becoming a major exporter?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I am interested and I agree with the thrust of the hon. member's question that we should have an environmental regime which encourages the development of a number of technologies in this country which we adapt to and then can export all over the world.
The trouble with his question is that we are already doing that. As a country we have federally inspired a number of environmental regulations which have given rise to a number of technological adaptations to dealing
with environmental problems. As a result of that we have exports of Canadian environmental technologies all over the world.
There is a firm in my riding, Trojan Technologies, which purifies water. It was put in place in a large measure by an environmental context and it is exporting to 80 different countries around the world.
There are lots of examples. I do not think that he should disparage the answer of the minister of science yesterday who reminded the House that we have a program for technological adaptation for export especially in relation to environmental products of over $100 million. That program has helped with hundreds of companies and we are doing exactly what the hon. member is asking us to do. He is just three or four years late with his question.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: If that is the case, Madam Speaker, then the entire environmental technology industry is three or four years late.
This week they said that the single biggest inhibitor to the development of environmental technologies is the fact that this government is five to ten years behind the Americans, who are five to ten years behind the Germans and the Japanese.
What is very clear to everybody who has been involved in this is what is driving the world's leaders, the U.S., the Japanese, and the Germans, is the development of environmental regulations on the cutting edge of new technologies, regulations that we will eventually have to adapt to and adopt when it is too late.
Given the failure of the Minister of the Environment to push for these kinds of regulations, will the minister of industry instead of hiding in some kind of cocoon take the environmental lead right across the industrial spectrum so that we in this country can develop the jobs of tomorrow in the industries of tomorrow?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, this is one of the most curious questions ever posed in the House.
Essentially, what he is asking is that the Government of Canada, almost regardless of environmental need, concoct endless regulations and red tape in order to develop industries. This is the Liberal backward way of stimulating an economy.
May 1, 1992

What we believe we should do is regulate the environment for environmental purposes, not to create technologies but regulate them for environmental purposes.
What you do to create technologies is adapt them of course to some regulations, but you also try to encourage them as we are through the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. There are six different panels that are studying this, that are producing programs, that are delivering assistance to environmental technology firms. We are doing this in a positive way rather than in a backward negative way, as proposed by the hon. member.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, today in New York last ditch negotiations are being held for a global warming convention. The United States is alone in refusing to sign an accord which would set specific targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
In view of the fact that the convention is in peril of becoming a meaningless accord without a specific commitment by the United States of America, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he will listen to the advice offered by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Will he urge the Prime Minister of Canada not to sign in Rio the proposed convention unless specific targets and timetables are included in this convention?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I cannot help but notice a slight difference between the question just asked by the hon. member and that of his seatmate who just 30 seconds ago was lauding the fact that the Americans tend to be a leader and suggested we should indeed follow in their footsteps.
The hon. member just made the point that Canada has been a leader with respect to providing leadership in the area of global warming and is urging us to exert some influence upon the United States.
It is true that Canadian representatives have played a very significant role in the negotiations leading up to Rio and it is true the Prime Minister has indicated that he will be one of the world leaders attending that particular conference. In fact, we think it is important that he showed sufficient interest in the environment to accept
Oral Questions
that responsibility and to take the opportunity to provide that leadership.
We hope that the example of Canada and other nations will help persuade the Americans to accept what we would consider to be, as the hon. member does, a very important role on their part.
The problems facing the environment are indeed global in nature and they can only be addressed adequately when the entire global community responds.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his answer and I want to remind him that in 1989 the Prime Minister of Canada made a very strong declaration on behalf of Canada in The Hague for the protection of the quality of the atmosphere.
Therefore, I ask him will the Government of Canada live up to the statement of the Prime Minister of Canada in 1989 and commit Canada to a reduction of 20 per cent in carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, as you know, Canada has been one of several nations that have accelerated their timetables which are already in place with respect to the deletion, the non-use, the non-importation of certain damaging products. We have in a very real sense taken second place to no one in that regard.
As one of my hon. colleagues has just suggested, I should remind the House of the very important innovation announced yesterday in British Columbia by the Prime Minister with respect to the Tree Plan Canada program, as I believe it is called.
There are a number of measures put in place. As the hon. member knows, the Canadian government has accelerated timetables that have been in place for several years. We have done that in co-operation with other ministries.
It is important to remember that all members of this government must work together to achieve these timetables. But it is also exceedingly important that the provinces be in co-operation with that, and industry, and various other organizations. The key approach is a co-operative one and we are doing a good job in that regard.

May 1, 1992
Oral Questions FISHERIES


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the minister of tourism.
The government's mismanagement of the east coast fishery is well known. Now there is potential for the same mismanagement in the Great Lakes.
The minister should know that lamprey eel are proliferating and destroying the fish stock in the Great Lakes. The U.S.A. has increased lamprey control funding by 18 per cent this year and a promise of 12 per cent next year, while Canada is not even meeting its funding obligations arising from a Canada-U.S. agreement struck in 1955.
I know that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is most concerned. Has he asked his colleague to announce that Canada will fulfil its long-standing obligation to preserve the fishing industry in the Great Lakes?


Thomas Hockin: I thank the hon. member for his question.
It is certainly true that zebra mussels, lamprey eel and all these other threats to the Great Lakes are very important. As a matter of fact, they are important to our commercial fishery as well as our recreational fishery. The recreational fishery is a tremendous job creator and I think that is why he looks at it as an important tourism component.
I have to tell him that the health of the Great Lakes has greatly improved. We have now unequalled stocks of trout and salmon in the Great Lakes that we did not have before. The sport fishery is growing enormously in Ontario in particular because of this.
I do not want to be complacent but I should tell my hon. friend that he should be brought up to date on how these fish stocks are improving. We are going to work to make sure that continues in the future.


Steve Butland: I appreciate the lesson. But this morning lamprey eel control individuals indicated that one in five trout in northern Lake Huron are wounded by the lamprey eel. So I do not accept the minister's admonition.
This is an embarrassment for Canadians who work in the field. They are meeting in Washington next week with their hats in their hands again, asking the Americans to help us. The American 18 per cent increase is going to American waterways only. The lamprey eels are spawning now.
Will the minister ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to reconsider the $2.3 million expenditure? That is all it would take to preserve a $1.4 billion annual sport and commercial fishing industry in the Great Lakes.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will talk to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to find out the whole array of things that we can do to address the problem the hon. member raises. I hope he will speak to the provincial Government of Ontario as well.


TAXATION
Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In his February budget, the minister announced a cut in federal personal income taxes. Yesterday, the Ontario provincial government announced an increase in the provincial personal income taxes.
What is the combined impact of the federal personal income tax cut and the provincial personal income tax increase on a resident of Ontario? Is this not exactly the same sort of situation that occurred in 1988?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, obviously the tax hit that has been imposed on the personal income tax sector is going to have the effect of undermining consumer confidence further still. It is a $1.1 billion hit which will affect some 4.9 million taxpayers.
The tax break that the federal government provided in the last budget would amount to a $640 million tax relief for Ontario citizens in 1993.
For 1993, the measures in the Ontario budget will have a negative effect of $825 million so that there will be a net negative effect of $285 million. That does not augur well at a time when we are trying to build consumer confidence and at a time when we are trying to encourage and stimulate consumer spending.
May 1, 1992

I hope that Bobbie Rae and his people will take another look at this.


PENSIONS
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Madam Speaker, in announcing a miserly 37 cent increase per month in the basic old age pension, the Minister of National Health and Welfare did not mention anything about the spouse's allowance or the guaranteed income supplement. I want to ask the government whether that omission was intentional.
Did the government know that the cheques those old age pensioners who qualify for the guaranteed income supplement or the spouse's allowance and whose only other income is the Canada pension received this week would be cut all because the government says there was a 5 per cent increase last year in the Canada pension and that the cost of living in Canada really did not go up for the last six months?
Could the government explain that to our senior citizens?


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. One thing we all realize has to do with the rate of inflation and how it affects the country from coast to coast.
Whether you are paying personal income tax, or whether it is a corporation, inflation is at its lowest rate in 20 years. Indeed OAS is indexed according to the CPI. It reflects the direct fall in the inflationary figures.
This is one thing that has been recognized not only by the IMF and the World Bank but also by the OECD. It is what is going to assist us to get out of our difficulties.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, MPs and regional offices of National Health and Welfare are being inundated today with irate callers, old age pensioners, who are asking why their income supplements and their spouse's allowance have been cut.
Does the government not feel ashamed that it has now short-changed the very segment of our society which least deserves it and which can least afford it, our senior citizens?
Oral Questions
I want to ask the government where do those so-called experts live who claim that the cost of living in Canada has not gone up in the last six months? Where do they live? In Her Majesty's penitentiary?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, I do not consider that last remark funny. Senior citizens are extremely important to this country. There is a bill in this House which says that OAS is indexed according to CPI.
While you think you may be doing one thing for your audience at home, we are here to see that inflation comes down and we get the deficit and debt under control.


JOSEPH FAULDER
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister and it is with respect to the scheduled execution of Canadian Joseph Faulder in Texas next Wednesday.
We know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has written to the governor asking that this death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment, but in Texas commutations are handled by a board which meets infrequently and which has not recommended clemency once in the last 47 cases.
As a matter of fact, Texas has the highest execution rate in the United States. The government knows that neither Texas nor the United States notified the Canadian government about this case, as required under the Vienna convention, with the result that Mr. Faulder did not get a proper defence at trial.
In the circumstances, would the government contact the governor once more asking that this execution be cancelled and a new trial ordered?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague said, the Secretary of State for External Affairs wrote to the Governor of Texas, asking him to commute Mr. Faulder's death sentence to life imprisonment. She did

Point of Order
so for the very reasons that my colleague mentioned, namely that the American authorities seem to have violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing to inform Mr. Faulder of his right to consult a representative of the Canadian government and therefore his family.
I think that the Secretary of State for External Affairs made the appropriate demands and of course we hope that her appeal will be heard.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would appreciate the hon. member putting a short supplementary so we can have a single question after from the hon. member for York-ton-Melville to close Question Period.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, the short question would be that the approach to the governor in Texas should be one not to commute the sentence, but to get a new trial because the defendant did not get a proper trial in the first instance.
Could the minister once again approach the Governor of Texas to cancel the execution and get a new trial, rather than asking for a commutation as she did, because there is very little chance for a commutation but there is a strong chance for a new trial.


Monique Landry: Madam Speaker, Mr. Faulder's case is being appealed in Texas and of course we are following the situation very closely.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister noticed today that Air Canada has announced another lay-off of some 350 people. Most of these are in the management category, but I am also told this morning by the union
that on May 6, Air Canada is going to be meeting the union.
There is a great deal of fear now among the pilots, the flight attendants, the baggage handlers, ticket agents and so on that they are going to hear a very negative announcement on May 6. Perhaps it will be more lay-offs or perhaps more concessions from the people who are going to be working there.
I wonder if the minister is aware of this meeting. If he is aware of it and he knows what is going to happen, can he tell the population of this country today as well as the workers what the situation really is at Air Canada.


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the particular meeting that the hon. member mentions.
Certainly Air Canada and Canadian as well are having to make very difficult business decisions to ensure that we continue to have two very healthy airlines in this country.
I am sure that the decisions that are made will take into consideration the future of their employees.


POINT OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if the Chair could give me some guidance.
Has the Chair received all the interventions with regard to the question of privilege raised by my colleague earlier this day? I understood that Mr. Speaker would resume his place if other members wished to join in the debate. I was just wondering if you could indicate this to us.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have been advised that Mr. Speaker will come back shortly, as soon as he is ready with a decision or to hear more people. He will come back. He has asked me to proceed with Routine Proceedings and even start Orders of the Day, but he will be back as soon as he can.
May 1, 1992



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8) of the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
32ND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
M. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 32nd report of the Standing Committee on House Management as per Standing Order 108(3).
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later today.


[Stage Direction]
33RD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
M. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table the 33rd report of the Standing Committee on House Management regarding votable items under Private Members' Business.
Pursuant to Standing Order 92(2), this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



EXCISE TAX ACT AND INCOME TAX ACT


Donald Frank Mazankowski: for leave to introduce Bill
Routine Proceedings
C-75, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Income Thx Act.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Mazankowski moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed carried.
Bill read the first time and printed.



BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION (FISCAL MEASURES) ACT, 1992 MEASURE TO AMEND

Donald Frank Mazankowski: for leave to introduce Bill C-76, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain fiscal provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 25, 1992.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Mazankowski moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed carried.
Bill read the first time and printed.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


M. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, with leave of the House, I move that the 32nd report of the Standing Committee on House Management, tabled today, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
May 1, 1992
Routine Proceedings

M. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to table five petitions calling upon Parliament to pressure the government to reinstate the Court Challenges Program through which, as we know, several Canadian men and women were able to ask the courts to clarify their linguistic and equality rights under the Constitution.
These five petitions are but a few of many petitions which speak volumes about the determination of the Canadian people to urge government to accede to their request and to reinstate the Court Challenges Program, a program which was costing a mere 10 cents per capita and which gave all Canadians access to justice.


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, I have a petition I would like to present today from my constituents in Lincoln and many within the Hamilton area who believe that there is a need to revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an update Juvenile Delinquents Act and a lowering of the maximum age to that of 13 years.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I have three different petitions from my constituents. The first is a petition in support of the parents of Nina de Villiers to draw to the attention to the House some shortcomings in the justice system and calls upon Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society. They call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code, the Bail Reform Act and the Parole Act accordingly.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The second petition points out that applications currently before the CRTC propose the entry into the long distance telephone market of Unitel and that the conditions of entry would provide a regulated cost advantage to the applicants who do not have to supply more costly local telephone service as do other regulated carriers.
Therefore the petitioners urge the Government of Canada to consult with all affected parties, especially rural residents who are at risk of skyrocketing costs for local and long distance telephone calls as a result of this proposed decision.
They call on the government to hold local hearings in rural communities before deciding the fate of our telephone system.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, the third petition calls upon Parliament to support Canada's rural way of life, to support the maintenance of rural post offices and postal services and to reject the Conservative agenda of cutbacks and closures of those services.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from several hundred residents of central Vancouver Island in British Columbia which draws to the attention of the House the fact that the United States has unfairly imposed a duty on our softwood lumber that amounts to harassment of Canadian producers.
The petitioners note that the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States has created economic devastation and the loss of jobs instead of providing the promised benefit.
They call upon Parliament to take any action necessary to defend the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber industry against the unfair American duty and call on Parliament to take action immediately to effect the cancellation of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by some 1,627 residents of my constituency and other communities in the adjacent area in British Columbia.
The petitioners say:
We, the residents of the Province of British Columbia, draw to the
attention of the House the following:
That impaired driving offences, alcohol and drug related penalties
are too lenient for these offences are becoming more frequent;
May 1, 1992

That each of these offences harms the public, places heavy burdens on our justice system, health care system and public purse;
There would be fewer such incidents if legislative measures were taken; automatic indefinite licence suspensions, vehicle confiscation for habitual offenders, mandatory blood testing, harsher penalties and plate identification decals for offenders are possible solutions.
Therefore, your petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation against impaired driving offenders.


David Stupich: Madam Speaker, my petition is certified correct under Standing Order 36 wherein the petitioners note that the Government of Canada has put forward proposals for amending the Constitution of Canada and that the government has established a citizens' forum to ascertain the views of Canadians on numerous matters and committees to consult with the people of Canada concerning these proposals, whereas the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution of Canada belongs to the people, and whereas the people of Canada believe that consultations should extend to and include approving or disproving Constitution amendments, therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people, binding upon Parliament, to accept or reject constitutional amendments put forward by the government, and further the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by a majority of votes of the total votes cast, and a majority vote in a majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege to present some petitions signed by people from all over the city of Toronto which have to do with the refugee system in this country. In the city of Toronto right now we have close to 60,000 refugees. The cost to the taxpayers of Canada is in the hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of the delayed processing of these refugees. It is the legitimate ones I am talking about right now. The delay in processing these claims is causing psychological pain, social pain, not only to the refugees but to all the people in the community where they live. It takes hundreds and hundreds of hours a month from our constituency offices
Routine Proceedings
trying to deal with these complaints. We are calling upon the government to grant a general amnesty to all those people with the exception of those who have criminal records in Canada or criminal records abroad.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 253, 254, 260, and 261.


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth): Did Canada Post Corporation sponsor the Canadian InterUniversity Athletic Union Basketball Championships to be held in March 1992 in Halifax and, if so, what was the total amount of money spent?


Harvie Andre: Canada Post Corporation has a commitment to participate in local community life and sponsoring an event like the Canadian Inter-University Athletic Union (CIAU) Championships is just one way of doing it. It is also a gesture of support toward amateur sports in Canada.
Canada Post Corporation took the opportunity to promote the stamp dedicated to basketball, which the Canadian Inter-University Athletic Union (CIAU) used as an enlargement as it's official poster for the tournament. This also supports stamp sales revenue objectives.
The corporation's involvement with communities includes sponsorships for the arts, for cultural and sporting events or for other social events, which is a standard business practice.
The commercially-sensitive information requested is considered proprietary information, as it may undermine the ability of the corporation to operate effectively in a very competitive market.


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth): Did Canada Post Corporation send special postcards to Canadian athletes at the Olympic Village in Albertville, France, and, if so, what was the total amount of money spent and how many postcards were sent?

May 1, 1992
Speaker's Ruling


Harvie Andre: Canada Post Corporation is a proud sponsor of the 1992 Winter and Summer Olympic Games. This international event is important to Canadians and focuses the attention of the world. Canada Post believes in supporting the Canadian Olympic athletes who are striving to do their best for Canada. The corporation showed support by encouraging Canadians to send special postcards, with their personal message to the Canadian athletes at the Olympic site in Albertville, France.
This worthy activity was possible through a joint venture with Kraft General Food Canada Inc. Kraft Canada supplied and paid for the special postcards, while Canada Post Corporation supplied Priority Courier service to get the postcards to Albertville.
With respect to the total amount of money spent for this activity, it is not appropriate for the corporation to comment or reveal any particulars concerning its involvement.


Mr. Young (Acadie-Bathurst): How does the Comptroller General, as part of his legislated mandate as the Chief Accountant of the Government of Canada, approve and monitor the development and operation of computer systems projects?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: One objective of the Office of the Comptroller General is to ensure that sound, cost-effective financial management systems are in place throughout government. As responsibility for the financial function is highly delegated, individual departments are accountable for the design, development and operation of their own financial systems. In this environment, the OCG discharges its responsibility through the establishment of a policy framework that includes criteria for evaluating software packages and design specifications for financial modules. Advice and assistance to departments in implementing the policies is provided through guidelines on project risk assessment and on auditing systems under development, by OCG participation on project management committees and by providing a list of pre-assessed software packages.
The future requirements for financial systems are an area of continuing focus for the OCG and in this context it has developed the Financial Information Strategy that, through the application of modern technology, will
improve the availability of relevant and timely financial information across government. The OCG has also been pro-active in improving support functions in general and, in partnership with departments and other central agencies established a Council for Administrative Renewal late last year to pursue opportunities to streamline administrative processes and systems. This new initiative will involve a fundamental rethinking of the way administrative services are provided, an increased focus on the optimization of government investment in systems through wider use of common solutions and the exploration of innovative ways for the delivery of administrative services.


Mr. Young (Acadie-Bathurst): What role did the (a) Deputy Comptroller General (b) Deputy
Comptroller of Audit and Review (c) Deputy Comptroller of Program
Evaluation play in the design and construction of the computer
system at the Department of External Affairs?


Gilles Loiselle: The (a) Deputy Comptroller General, (b) Deputy Comptroller of Audit and Review and (c) Deputy Comptroller of Program Evaluation played no role in the design and construction of computer systems at the Department of External Affairs.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Before I give my ruling on the point of privilege that was raised this morning by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River and the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair, I wish to express my gratitude to all those members who participated in the representations. I said that this morning but I want to repeat it. This is a sensitive issue for the Chair and for
May 1, 1992

the House and I much appreciate the tone and the manner in which members presented their arguments.
Having said that, as I indicated this morning, I also fully appreciate the concern expressed, no matter how politely, by hon. members.
I want to assure the House that I have reviewed the electronic record and the appropriate pages in Hansard. Clearly, the Acting Speaker did not ask on the record for questions and comments but the record also shows that no one sought the floor after the Acting Speaker posed the question for the second time: "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?" I am stressing that because there was, of course, a question raised by an hon. member with respect to question and comment. Subsequent to that and what the Acting Speaker said about that the question was further put: "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?"
Members had the option then to also call for further debate and on the record no member attempted to claim the floor. Furthermore, when the Acting Speaker said: "The last question is on the main motion, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?" again, the record does not show that any hon. member sought to debate the main motion further. Since I can find in neither record any objection to what the Acting Speaker did, I have little option under the circumstances but to find that there is no prime facie case of privilege in this matter.
I can say to the House that I hope this kind of situation will not arise again.
We will proceed with Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Monique Vezina (for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: that Bill C-68, an act to amend the Competition Act (multi-level marketing plans and pyramid selling), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
Government Orders


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, just so that there is some clarity in the House with regard to the debate for the remainder of the afternoon, we are on Bill C-68 which the Chair has called. I just wanted to indicate to the new parliamentary secretary to the government House leader my very best wishes in his new responsibilities as the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and I look forward to working with him today and the remaining days that we have in this session.
I want to inform him that there was an understanding among House leaders that we would conclude the debate on Bill C-68 at all three stages today. I want to inform him that my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood will be leading the debate for us on that particular subject matter.
Thereafter, Bill C-67 will be completed at all stages. This was the other understanding that we had. My distinguished colleague from Kingston and the Islands will make a brief intervention. I underline for the parliamentary secretary, as he will come to appreciate, that this will be a brief intervention by my colleague from Kingston and the Islands.
With regard to Bill C-54, my colleague from Lamb-ton-Middlesex will be leading the debate. He has a number of points. He might be much longer than he normally is in his deliberations. I wanted to share that information with the parliamentary secretary so that he will understand quite clearly that there is no gamesmanship being played on this side of the House, as there has never been on this side of the House since I have been in the chair as opposition House leader.
Madam Speaker, I just wish to share that information with him in terms of what we will be doing in the hours ahead.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I receive with thanks and great appreciation the kind remarks of the hon. opposition House leader and I can assure him that the commitment he has given about no gamesmanship will be responded to in full spirit from this side as far as I am concerned.
We will be very brief today on the issue of Bill C-68. My colleague, the parliamentary secretary from the riding of Champlain, will be brief on Bill C-67 as well.

May 1, 1992
Government Orders
Very, very briefly, Madam Speaker, the package which is before us today reflects extensive consultations with the multi-level marketing industry. Bill C-68 is, of course, an amendment to the pyramid selling provisions.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. parliamentary secretary now rising on debate on Bill C-68? I thought he was on a point of order Is that debate on Bill C-68?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, indeed it is debate and I should have clarified that point. I was proceeding as expeditiously as we had been invited to do.
Multi-level marketing is a product distribution system whereby a participant receives compensation for the supply of a product to any participant in the system who in turn receives compensation for the supply of a product to other participants in the system. There are approximately three-quarters of a million Canadians involved in this industry on a full- or part-time basis. They stand to benefit directly from speedy passage of this substantive amendment.
Before I deal with the technicalities of the proposal, I want to take just a moment to note the support the government has obtained from the two House leaders opposite, and more particularly from the hon. member for Dartmouth and the hon. member for Chambly.

Section 55 of the Competition Act has been a source of confusion for multi-level marketing companies, the public and the courts ever since the legislation was passed in 1976. Because of the problems arising from the section's application, a test case was brought before the Federal Court of Canada in 1980 so that the court could rule on the section's interpretation. In April 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the interpretation given as to the substance and constitutionality of the section.
The court confirmed the ruling of the Federal Appeal Court that selling schemes that involve payment of a commission for products purchased by participants in the scheme or of commissions for products that continue to be part of the inventory of the recruited participant would be included under the definition of "scheme of pyramid selling" in the legislation.

It was recognized, however, that the existing provision had a number of weaknesses, and discussions were held between the Bureau of Competition Policy and the multi-level marketing industry to improve the legislation. Specifically, the section did not adequately address several practices associated with pyramid selling schemes, such as compensation for recruitment; inventory loading, that is products sold to recruits in unreasonable quantities; required purchases as a condition of entry into a plan; failure to provide the participant with the right to return the product; and, exaggeration of earning potential by disclosing non-representative compensation received by participants.
These practices will now be strictly prohibited.
With the adoption of Bill C-68, consumers who could otherwise have been harmed by deceptive pyramid schemes will be better protected under the Competition Act. As well, industry will benefit from this simplified legislation which will remove some of the uncertainties surrounding the current wording.
Furthermore, all provinces affected by the proposed amendment I have just outlined have been consulted and have responded positively. Clearly, the proposed changes will improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of Canadian competition law as it applies to multi-level marketing.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like once again to thank my hon. friends opposite for their participation and co-operation in the consultations that have led to the drafting of this timely legislation, as well as to its speedy passage.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by congratulating the member for Edmonton Southwest on his new assignment as parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
It seems that whenever he is involved in legislation in this House it always has a very high road approach, and I think as a result of his style and his approach invariably the legislation that he works on goes through this House in a very expeditious and constructive way. I think as parliamentary secretary to the House leader he will do a terrific job.
May 1, 1992

As he mentioned, we on this side of the House support this bill. I want to mention that my colleague from Dartmouth, who has worked with the government on this bill for the last little while, has likewise indicated his full support for this amendment to the Competition Act.
I do not think that Canadians realize what a large industry direct marketing is. We are talking about an industry which is close to $8 billion. We are talking about a sector that involves close to 370,000 small businesses engaged in the direct selling business.
As this industry continues to grow, it is very important that the practices be above board. It is important that people who are in the business and have ethics that are above reproach and approved by the direct marketing board get the assurance and the support of this legislation. It is also most important that the consumer is protected because it brings this type of business on to a much higher and a much more sophisticated plane.
I noticed in the legislation that any person who contravenes or goes against this new act is guilty of an offence and subject to a fine at the discretion of the court, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and on a summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both.
This is a pretty strong message to those people who are in this multi-level marketing system, that they make sure their style, their approach, their business ethic meets all of the requirements of this legislation.
This is an interesting way to end this week, putting through legislation in such sort order. Because of the state of the economy right now, I wish that we could bring in similar legislation which would expedite and help other industries in other sectors get on with their business in the same way.
So often the paper burden, red tape and slowness that seems to be attached to the legislation as it involves business in this country is part of the reason our economy has been so sluggish.
Our action today is what Canadians like to see in this House. I wish we could use the process we are using here
Government Orders
today where we put through a bill in such short order in other sectors of the economy.
As I mentioned earlier this week, we have the lowest interest rate that this country has seen in over 20 years, an inflation rate that is virtually eliminated in this country, yet there seems to be this lack of confidence in the marketplace. I said that these are positive facts, that the interest rate and inflation are low. But this lack of confidence is there. Part of that lack of confidence is that we are not sending a signal of leadership on issues that we control here.
We could be using a much more progressive approach in terms of tax reform in this country, especially when it comes to small and medium-sized business and also on the personal side. I guess all of us would concede that this being the week we do our tax returns, more than ever we are reminded of the complexity of the system. Yet we seem to be cautious in attacking the complex system that governs this country in terms of tax reform.
Even though the bill before us today is not complex, there was still the political will on all sides of the House that we clean up this sector of the economy and move the legislation through the House of Commons quickly.
If we could do that in many more areas then the confidence that Canadians innately have but are not showing right now could turn into action. We need to get Canadians feeling good about themselves.
People all over our country must have have had that feeling of total bewilderment as they watched television last night and saw what was happening in Los Angeles. Our neighbours to the south are going through almost a state of anarchy. I do not need to describe it. Every Canadian, I am sure, saw with total and utter amazement what happened in Los Angeles. I, for one, felt so good about Canada last night. I felt so secure and so appreciative of what we have in this country.
There are close to one million Canadians now living in the State of California. A lot of them went there because they felt that California was the place to be, whether it was because the tax system was better than ours or because there was a special job opportunity. I could not help but think that a lot of those Canadians living in California now are probably thinking and maybe appreciating Canada just a little more than they did two days ago.

May 1, 1992
Government Orders
It is important that we appreciate everything we have in this country. I believe we are on the verge of igniting the spirit of Canadians in this country again, where they can feel proud of all the things we should feel proud of.
I know this is a small piece of legislation here, but it is not small in the sense that it touches 370,000 businesses. I do not know how many people are employed in this industry. There must be at least a million or maybe more employed directly or indirectly. In effect, it touches the lives of a lot of people. When they see that we put through a piece of legislation in this House in less than half a day, they are going to ask: "Why can you not do that in other areas?" We have an opportunity to do just that between now and our 125th anniversary, which is a couple of months away.
Today is a very special day around here because we have the unveiling of the portrait of the former Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Prior to speaking on this bill, I said hello to him and congratulated him.
As someone who had the opportunity of working with the former Prime Minister, it is only right to say that, in my opinion, he was a person who is caring and passionate. Even though there may not always be agreement with his point of view on certain issues, he always took a strong stand and lead in a forceful way.
Whatever our point of view might be on various issues in this House, Canadians look forward over the next little while to a style and an approach where even though there may be different points of view, we do take strong positions and advance them in debate in a constructive way.
Whenever I deal with the member for Edmonton Southwest I always get that feeling. I salute him on pushing this this amendment to the Competition Act through the House in an expeditious way. Let us use it as a model to to get many more pieces of legislation through the House.


David Stupich: Madam Speaker, the New Democrat caucus agreed to this bill going through in one sitting or as has been said, less than half a day, but it is not necessarily the sort of thing that we want to make a habit of.
In this case it is good legislation. It is relatively minor in content yet very important in that it extends consumers' rights and gives consumers the right not to be misled. It deals with multi-level selling. I suppose most
people would know that type of selling better under the term of pyramid selling.
My concern about getting into the habit of passing legislation in one sitting such as this is because of one particular experience in the legislature in British Columbia when we did exactly the same thing. It seemed to be a good change legislatively. It was supported by both parties in the House. There were only two parties in the House at the time. It was done in a hurry in part because it was the last day of sitting before adjournment for the season.
To our chagrin, within 24 hours the legislature had to be recalled for an emergency session. Instead of making one slight change in the operation of a major provincial insurance company, we found out that what we had accomplished was to wipe out the company entirely. We had to be hastily reconvened so that we could reinstate the company. I think the change that we had tried to make has never been made to this day, but at least the insurance company is back in business.
The present bill is good legislation. We have had the time to study it and to be satisfied that it is not doing anything more or less than it says it is doing. We join in supporting it and in helping it get through its three stages.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I must say to the House that the Chair is in a quandary right now. I had heard that the consent from the House was that Bill C-67 and Bill C-54 were going through all stages. Now I hear different members saying that Bill C-68 is going through all stages at this time. I need to have the unanimous consent of the House to change the order to go to Committee of the Whole.
The motion which is in front of the House now said that it was second reading and referral to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope. So I do not know where we are.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I hesitated to correct Your Honour when you read it that way. I had hoped that the intervention of the hon. opposition House leader had redirected us on to the correct path when he stated that there was agreement among the parties that we would go through all stages of C-68 followed by all stages of C-67. He may not have made this last point, but there was an
May 1, 1992

Government Orders
agreement that thereafter we would proceed to third reading of Bill C-54.
In any event the opposition House leader correctly stated there was agreement on Bill C-67 and Bill C-68 to proceed through all stages.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has correctly stated the understanding that we would complete in all stages Bill C-68. My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood who has spoken already may have a few additional remarks at another stage of the bill, but it should be completed forthwith.
Likewise, we would commence with Bill C-67 and my colleague for Kingston and the Islands would be the only speaker on behalf of our party who would be speaking on that particular matter, again all stages of the bill.
We would complete third reading of Bill C-54 and my colleague from Lambton-Middlesex will take some time in terms of concerns he has to raise. I am sure hon. members will co-operate in that regard as well.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)) moved: that Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Competition Act (mutli-level marketing plans and pyramid selling) be read the second time and, with the unanimous consent of the House, referred to Committee of the Whole.


Madam 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, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and printed.

Shirley Martin: that Bill C-67, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and, with the unanimous consent of the House, referred to Committee of the Whole.


Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, I will be brief, since after consulting with the parties, we have obtained the unanimous consent of the House to go into Committee of the Whole. As you know, this bill must be passed as soon as possible, because if the readjustment process were to take its course under the present regulations, the new boundaries would not come into force until the middle of August in 1994.1 do not think that is what the members of this House want.
Since the readjustment process is a statutory obligation under the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, it can only be changed through legislation, and that is why, with the members of this House, we have agreed to proceed with Bill C-67.
As you know, and as you said yourself, there is unanimous consent, and I hope the bill will be adopted at all stages today.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to support this particular piece of legislation.
The Royal Commission on Electoral Reform recommended certain changes in the electoral law of Canada which would deal with the adjustment of boundaries. The parliamentary committee on electoral reform, the special committee of this House, is studying that very issue. At some point it will, anyway. We have been slugging away all morning and most of this week in fact on these issues. We will be presenting a report to the House I trust in due course. It will not deal with readjustment, but sooner or later we will deal with readjustment. My guess is the rules may change.

Government Orders
In light of that possibility and in light of the fact that a readjustment could not be completed before the next election, the intent of this bill is quite satisfactory from our perspective because it will simply save the Canadian taxpayers about $5 million.
To that extent, we are delighted with the change. We recognize that there are some ridings based on the census statistics released on Tuesday which will be grossly oversized, and some will be grossly undersized. That is a problem that will have to be resolved a little later. I am optimistic that this bill is satisfactory from that perspective, and we are pleased to offer our support to it.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I will also support the bill as it will be amended.
We did not like the original bill and made a point of that with the other political parties in that there was a problem that redistribution would not start for two full years. As just mentioned by the previous speaker, that could be very harmful for large population ridings which at the present time are based on the 1981 census.
We know there has been a dramatic shift in population. That has meant that some ridings are almost twice the size of other ridings in the same province. We thought a two-year delay could mean that not only the 1993 election would not be held on the new boundaries but that perhaps an election in 1995 or 1997 would not be held on the new boundaries.
There has been a compromise reached that would allow time for the committee studying changes to the Election Act and redistribution to prepare its report and at the same time allow for the possibility that there would be no use starting this process if we were in the middle of a federal election.
The amendment which will be introduced I am sure when we reach Committee of the Whole meets the objectives that we want. Yes, we recognize that there is work being done by the House of Commons committee on electoral reform as a result of the royal commission and that there are likely to be some changes in the rules on which we base redistribution. At the same time we did not want to penalize those ridings and those provinces which would be entitled to more seats as a result of the census.
I think the amendment which will be introduced in a
few minutes will meet our concerns, and with that in mind I will complete my remarks for now.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam 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, the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.
Andrée  Champagne: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-67, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
On clause 2-Suspension


Michel Champagne: Madam Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment:
That clause 2 of Bill C-67 be amended by striking out line 7 on
page 1 and substituting the following:
until one year after the day on which this Act is assented to or, if a general election is then is progress, until the hundred and eightieth day after the day fixed for the return of the writs at that election.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Chairman, I am pleased to support the amendment proposed by the parliamentary secretary. I know there have been discussions and this is the way it is to be. I regret that it is not 180 days after the return of the writs, not one year. The one year is unnecessary. I hope there will be an election within a year. I hope there will be an election very soon and so do the Canadian people.
Given that this may not happen, it is a shame that this House will have to deal with another bill postponing this matter next April if an election has not been called by that date, which it should be. If it has not, we will simply have to pass another bill deferring this matter further because there is no use spending $5 million on a redistribution immediately before a campaign because it all gets held up during the election campaign in any event.
May 1, 1992

However, I am prepared to support the amendment as proposed and will agree to allow it to proceed.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, the reason I support the amendment that redistribution would start one year from the date of Royal Assent is that after having discussions with the Chief Electoral Officer and others, it became apparent that a good amount of work could be done prior to a federal election.
At a certain point, a federal election would prevent the boundaries commission from doing its work. There is a lot of work that can be done prior to the start of another election.
In concern for those provinces that are entitled to more seats and in concern for those people who live in ridings with very large populations, including the members who represent those ridings, I thought that there should not be any undue delay.
After consultations with Elections Canada and others, it became apparent that a lot of the work can be done without creating any confusion either in Elections Canada or in the public mind.


Andrée  Champagne: The amendment as presented by the hon. parliamentary secretary is admissible.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to accept this amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
On clause 3 -Duty of Chief Statistician
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Chairman, I believe that as a consequence of the amendment to clause 2, some adjustment to clause 3 is
Government Orders
required. I trust the parliamentary secretary is going to move an amendment.


Michel Champagne: Exactly, Madam Chairman. We propose:
That clause 3 of Bill C-67 be amended by striking out lines 12 and 13 on page 1 and susbtituting the following:
"after the day determined under section 2 and, in any event, not later than ten days thereafter."


Andrée  Champagne: This amendment is admissible. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Andrée  Champagne: Shall clause 3, as amended, carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
On clause 4-Coming into force


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Chairman, I have a brief question for the parliamentary secretary.
I wonder if the Chief Electoral Officer has now received from the chief statistician the materials required pursuant to subsection 13(1) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act in light of the fact that the chief statistician's figures were released on Thesday of this week.


Michel Champagne: Madam Chairman, the figures were published this week on Ibesday, but we and Elections Canada are waiting for a report from the Chief Statistician for it to be official.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported.
Monique Landry: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
May 1, 1992
Government Orders
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Monique Landry: that Bill C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak during this third reading of the amendments to the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.
A recurring theme in the recent deliberations over Canada's future is that we have to make some fundamental changes in the way we do business if our private sector is going to continue to compete successfully in an increasingly globalized marketplace.
To ensure their success in the years ahead, Canadian industries must learn to adapt much more quickly to rapid economic, political and technological changes. They must work to continually improve every facet of their businesses in order to compete with top competitors around the world.
In the agrifood industry this means using and developing new technologies and processes to increase crop yields; to develop a wider variety of processed food products; to ensure sustainable agricultural development and to ensure the highest possible level of food safety and quality. It also means that the industry must become more aggressive, innovative and self-reliant in marketing its products so that it can adjust to rapidly changing market conditions and move quickly to capitalize on new market opportunities.
The amendments before us will go a long way toward helping the agrifood industry become more successful competitors.
I want to clarify something at the outset. The Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act was originally passed to set up marketing agencies and has been used to create marketing boards in the feather and dairy industry. These amendments do not allow the establishment of marketing boards for their commodities. What we are talking about doing is changing the name of this bill to the National Farm Products Council in order to reflect its wider jurisdiction and to reflect the fact that the legislation touches more than just marketing agencies.
What is being proposed is to add a new section to the act. It will allow agrifood groups to charge levies called check-offs so that they can set up national promotional and research agencies for one or more farm products, agencies which will help and develop the products and processes they need to be more competitive on world markets.
These amendments to the Farm Marketing Agencies Act respond to numerous requests for change from a wide cross-section of the agrifood industry. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Horticultural Council, the Canadian Pork Council, the Canadian Fruit Wholesalers Association, the Fresh for Flavour Foundation, Western Grains Research Foundation, the Canadian Honey Council, the Canadian Nursery Trade Association have all expressed an interest in national check-offs.
Indeed, these groups surveyed indicated that they would spend a portion of the funds on primary production research projects. We believe that the legislation will do a great deal to assist the industry in meeting the challenges of the future.
As well, the passage of this bill will send a clear signal to all Canadian industries that we are fully committed to making the regulatory changes needed to help them become more competitive. Competitiveness, of course, is a key element in the government's prosperity initiative. This is an excellent opportunity to put the words into action.
National check-off programs are also consistent with the new agrifood policies which are being developed by the government in consultation with the provinces, producers, consumer groups and other stakeholders in the agrifood industry.
May 1, 1992

Allowing the collection of mandatory or refundable levies to finance commodity based promotion and research agencies supports many of the goals articulated in the 1989 Growing Together paper. These include improved market responsiveness, shared responsibility for economic development between the public and private sectors and greater self-reliance to the agrifood industry.
Activities that could be supported by check-offs include market research, new product development, consumer education and advertising and promotion. Check-offs will encourage greater self-reliance because levies will be collected from the membership of the commodity group.
These proposed check-offs will not be imposed on agrifood groups. Indeed, no promotion and research agency will be set up unless a majority of the producers are in favour. Proposed amendments, therefore, place a strong emphasis on the wishes of individual producers.
In order to determine whether there is majority support, the Governor in Council may ask for a plebiscite. As well, the amendments provide for mandatory public hearings on the establishment of such agencies.
Furthermore, accountability to producers will also be ensured by producer membership on promotion and research agencies. Where there are no check-offs on imports, a majority of the agency members will be primary producers. These members can be appointed in any manner, including election by producers.
Finally, the National Farm Products Council will be responsible for ensuring that the promotion research agencies operate smoothly. If a problem is brought to its attention, the council will investigate and take necessary action.
This legislation will help level the playing field for Canadian producers. For example at present, Canadian cattle and beef producers pick up the whole tab for the beef information centre, but imported beef benefits from its promotional activities.
The objective of the check-offs is to fund research and promotion programs with two main goals: First, to
Government Orders
improve the competitive position of the product, and second, to expand domestic and foreign markets for the product.
In particular, it would support such activities as research into production, processing, distribution and marketing of the commodity. In short, check-offs would be used to enhance the competitiveness of the products. Until now, many of the industry's promotional programs have been ad hoc.
In addition, while Canadian products have a reputation for quality, Canada has lacked a national image in foods and has lagged behind in the development of value added. As a result, many producers and processors would prefer a more concerted and co-ordinated system whereby market promotion and development programs would be more aggressive and longer term.
Provincial check-offs have not been added within developing such a system. Therefore, producers have been looking for national check-offs to help establish such a system. Successful check-off programs could help the government achieve its target of 2.5 million new jobs by the year 2000.
Check-offs would permit commodity groups to develop market and promotion programs designed for the specific needs of their commodities. As well, they would give producers greater control over the establishment of research priorities and disbursement of research funds. This would give producers a greater interest in applying the results of the research.
We also recognize that in these days of intense multilateral trade negotiations, we must be sensitive to the possible requirements of new trade agreements. In this regard, I want to assure members of the House that our proposals do nothing to create an unfair trade advantage of the Canadian industry.
In the first place, the check-offs charged on imported products must equal those charged to domestic producers. We have no intention of breaking our international trade obligations. Second, where imports are involved, there will be representation from import organizations on the research and promotion agencies.

May 1, 1992
Business of the House
It is important as well to remember that beef, pork, potato and honey producers in the United States have check-off systems which apply to imported products.
The amendments we are proposing can provide our producers with access to the same kinds of check-off systems available to their U.S. counterparts.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, three amendments to Bill C-54 in committee were ruled inadmissible. The government then sought unanimous consent of the House to accept these amendments and received consent for two out of the three. The remaining amendment would allow wheat and barley produced in the Canadian Wheat Board designated area to be declared eligible for checkoff as part of the Promotion Research Agency.
This amendment was supported by organizations such as Prairie Pools, the Western Grains Research Foundation and the Canadian Wheat Board. Unfortunately the opposition would not accept this amendment despite industry's support. As a result, we must now wait for another opportunity to allow these farm products to be made eligible for check-offs.
Before concluding, I would like to address one myth that seems to have grown up around this piece of legislation and that is the belief that the federal government wants to get out of research and just let the farmers do it all. Far from it. Agriculture Canada is committed to research. Just last June the department backed a conference in Montreal called "Partnerships- A Focus on Technology" to get industry's views on where the research branch of the department should direct its resources.
As a result of that conference, the department will be concentrating on high-profile research the private sector is unable to undertake, newer work and value-added research. In addition, the Minister of Agriculture recently announced $170 million will be dedicated to funding projects under the green plan.
Agriculture Canada and the federal government remain committed to agricultural research. Bill C-54 will enable the industry to complement the research done by government with its own projects designed to meet its own priorities.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my rudeness in interrupting my colleague and interrupting this debate, but there have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, on Monday, May 4,1992, the House allow further debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies, provided that no further amendments be allowed and that the deferred division to dispose of second reading of said bill would be taken at 10 a.m. Tuesday.
Mr. Speaker, that would provide an opportunity for the debate to continue past the normal sitting hours on Monday night until all interested speakers have been heard.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see you in the chair today.
My colleague opposite has indeed had consultations with myself and I believe with members of the New Democratic Party, particularly their very able representative. I wish to give the consent of the Official Opposition to this motion, but I want it to be understood very clearly that this in no way condones the activities of the Chair on a previous occasion. It in no way answers our concerns about what has taken place in this Chamber, particularly yesterday. In no way do we feel relieved, if you will, of the unfairness which took place at an earlier time.
I wish to state that we will proceed with the debate on Bill C-63, second reading. We will sit past six o'clock if necessary with no dilatory motions or things of that nature to take place and thereafter with a vote to take place at 10 a.m. on Tbesday morning.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the people who were negotiating this arrangement, although I was in the House, that this is essentially the agreement that was reached and we will comply with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: To the member for Edmonton, the date is unclear. Is it 10 a.m. Tuesday, May 5?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Correct, Mr. Speaker.

1:
*

May 1, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: Agreed. Does the parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McKnight that Bill C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof be read the third time and passed.
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am bit nervous about taking part in this debate today because I am very familiar with the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. In fact, I was one of the charter members for the National Farm Products Marketing Council in 1972.
I was nominated by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. It was a great honour for me to be involved in setting up the first three national agencies. The third one did not come into being until after I had left the council. When I was first appointed I understood it was only going to be a part-time position but before I ever started I found out it was a full-time position.
It was a tremendous experience as a Canadian to be involved in the negotiations with the various provinces, the various producer groups, across Canada which was really Confederation working at its very best.
The producers had asked for this legislation. It is only in a country like Canada where they would have come up with the necessary transfers of authority in federal-provincial agreements to made the system work very, very effectively. Very quickly it became the most sophisticated marketing system in the world. It has never contributed to surpluses that are of concern to us around the world, surpluses that are being attacked at the present time through the GATT.
Government Orders
We gained a part of that success through article XI of the GATT whereby the restrictions imposed on our own producers would be imposed on imports and therefore we could plan ahead to supply our domestic market and any export markets that might come along.
As these systems were refined they very quickly brought stability to the poultry farmers across Canada; a stability that is only equalled by those of the dairy farmers across Canada who had their own legislation that was brought in in earlier years.
If the purpose of this change is to enable the producers of Canada to adapt more quickly, and with better processing adapt to sustainable agriculture, then of course I have no problems. It is interesting that only the poultry and dairy sectors have the returns at the present time to adapt to sustainable agriculture. If we look at the problems gathering around this planet we have to be very, very concerned about the future food supply for generations to come.
This bill allows the Farm Products Marketing Council to provide the authority to the producers to collect levies; levies that can be collected if the majority of producers agree. Other producers are not already covered by this legislation but I should point out, as I understand the amendments of the act, this could also be used to collect moneys on imported products that are being sold in Canada and in effect be used to promote imported products.
When I look at this it is a grave concern because in March 1989 I asked the Minister of Agriculture what he was going to do about the million pounds a week of no-roll beef coming into Canada. Of course the response was it must be needed or it would not be coming in.
Two years later I asked again and the response was very similar. Just recently there was a regulation change that was supposed to deal with the situation. It is a regulatory amendment and requires that a beef carcass or a portion thereof, including a sub-primal cut, not be imported or shipped from a registered establishment unless the beef is packed in a bulk container and that container is marked with grade, name of the product, or in the case of ungraded beef, with the words "ungraded beef".

May 1, 1992
Government Orders
No-rolled beef is ungraded beef. When you grade a carcass of beef you run a roller down the side that stamps on the grade and in the case of Canadian grades it is grades Al, 2, 3, or 4 and then of course Cl, 2, 3, or 4 as cow beef. We had some changes just recently that include the triple A. The point is that the ungraded beef that is coming into Canada, even though a lot of it is boxed and wrapped, could very well be cow beef.
Here is the hooker on this new regulation which makes it meaningless. Even though the container or bulk container has to be marked with the name and the grade which is the Canadian grade equivalent coming into Canada, there is no legal requirement for the retailer to display that grade or the standard.
Here we are making it legal to collect levies that include levies on imported products coming into Canada in direct competition with our products here in Canada and at the retail level there is no requirement whatsoever to show what the grade is, to show the Canadian consumer what they are buying and consequently it will be working to the detriment of our own industry.
I maintain that any imported food has to be raised and processed or produced and processed, whichever we want to use, whether it is vegetables, crops, or meats, and processed under similar standards as that produced in Canada. On many occasions I have said in this House that we may have products that are not allowed to be used in Canada such as chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, or hormones, but imported foods can have a minimum level of those substances involved. It is not allowed to be used in Canada, we have a zero tolerance level in this country, but it does not apply to imported foods because of minimum standards.
I want to go even further. Just last night on Prime Time Live ABC television there was a program on meat contamination in the U.S. I am just going to touch on it very briefly. The United States Department of Agriculture has a Streamlined Inspection System, really giving the processing plants the powers to inspect their own meat, the honour system, and 20 per cent of U.S. beef falls under this system.
I was shocked at what we saw on that program and the conditions. I cannot comment on the authenticity of that
program, however they did have a letter advising a plant that an inspector would be coming on a certain date, giving approximately five days warning so the plant could clean up its operation before the inspector arrived.
They had 10 samples of meat tested by the U.S.A. Department of Agriculture and seven of the ten proved to be contaminated.
I am also deeply concerned about what is happening in the poultry industry. The Canadian poultry industry is one of the most sophisticated in the world. It shows a profit to primary producers under legislation provided for in the act we are debating today. I am also deeply concerned that the agencies established under this act are under open attack, an attack that started here. It is an attack against the subsidies being paid to Canadian farmers a year ago last October, an attack that started on the front bench on the government side when the minister stated that. There is $8 billion worth of subsidies given to Canadian agriculture, $2 billion of which goes to dairy farmers. In actual fact, there is only $267 million of subsidy going to the industrial milk producers in Canada.
We had a whole series of editorials and articles in the various media and even more recently, attacks by other people in the food sector against our marketing systems here in Canada.
On March 25 a representative of the Grocery Manufacturers Association made the statement that supply management costs consumers in excess of $5 billion a year in Canada. How could that possibly be? The total farm gate value of dairy and poultry products, the value the farmers receive for those products in Canada, only amounts to $4.8 billion. Are our Canadian farmers supposed to produce for nothing and then subsidize to have it taken away? Is this what they are suggesting? I suggest not. Farmers have a right to a standard of living similar to that of the rest of Canada. They have a right to an income that is commensurate with that of the rest of Canada and yet we are being attacked.
I want to say at this point that the Canadian consumer spends the second lowest in terms of disposable income on food purchases of any country in the world. Only the United States is slightly lower, a little over 1 per cent lower. If you look at food costs in capital cities of the world, Canada is the lowest. Right here in Ottawa food
May 1, 1992

costs are lower than they are in Washington, the capital of the United States.
What is all the fuss about? We even had one person claim to represent 2,000 independent grocery retailers. This person called himself the head of the Ontario Food Alliance. Incidentally, I should point out that this Ontario Food Alliance is a subsidiary of a very large distribution and retailing conglomerate here in Canada.
He questioned some of the statistics used when I showed the spreads between the producer price and the processor price. Spreads at that level are very consistent. The retail price went up dramatically over the last 10 years. He could not disagree with my figures because they were accurate. They are figures from the Agriculture Canada food basket commentary or Statistics Canada and they included specials. Specials appear from time to time in the various retail outlets.
He said it was misleading because when the farmer sells chickens, the head and the feathers have to be taken off and the body eviscerated before it is sold. The fact is we quoted eviscerated weight to the producer.
I should point out that within a day or two after the farmers protested here on Parliament Hill on February 21, the vice-president of a very large fast-food chicken outlet said on national television here in Canada that the reason chicken prices were too high here in Canada is because the farmer charges too much.
Let me say that one of those chickens is sold to the processor for $2 for the entire chicken. It does not matter if it is dead or alive, he got $2 for it. I never heard of a farmer delivering a load of dead chickens to a processor in my life. I never, ever got paid for a dead chicken. However, the processor got $1.50 for processing that chicken and cutting it into nine pieces and those nine pieces sold for $11.50 including the GST. That is a box of chicken, nine pieces.


An hon. member:: The handling charges get GST.


Ralph Ferguson: The retail price was $10 plus GST.
If the farmer gave that company the chicken for nothing and if the processor processed it for nothing, the total cost of those two things is $3.50, then of course the price would be roughly $8 for the retailer. That price is $2 higher than what a similar box was being sold for in
Government Orders
the United States. That includes the cost of the chicken, the processing and the margin of the retailer. Yet he accused the farmers of charging too much.
I just want to go on a little further in that regard. That same individual from the Ontario Food Alliance stated that only 10 to 15 cents worth of wheat was required to grow a chicken. That is nonsense.
First, Ontario chickens are not fed wheat but a mixture of corn, other grains and protein supplements. In the cost of production formula that is used by the Ontario Chicken Marketing Agency and audited by Peat Marwick they determine the cost of feed for a kilogram of live chicken to be 47.27 cents or, if that chicken is grown for specialty markets as I am speaking of here, the cost of feed is 83.6 cents for that total chicken.
This individual only underestimated the cost of feed by 557 per cent! Talk about an error. In addition to the cost of feed, the cost of the baby chick to the farmer is 49 cents. If the farmer received $2 for the bird when it was completely ready for market, he would have a return of 14 cents a bird to cover his investment, labour, management and risk.
When people say they want cheaper chicken, I want to give an example of cheaper chicken. We have standards and management practices in Canada where after every flock of chickens goes through a bam, the bam is cleaned and in many cases disinfected. Our processors are under strict government inspection. We have the highest quality inspection system of any in the world.
I have an article about some work that has been going on in the United States at the present time. This one is from the May 26, 1991 edition of the Atlanta Journal Constitution, headed "The poultry industry's hidden perils". It states:
Millions of tainted birds make it to market, inspectors say.
I let some of my colleagues in on the gory details the other day, but I do not think I want them on the record here. It also states:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, responsible for ensuring that poultry products are wholesome, is failing so completely that the distinctive USDA seal of approval today no longer guarantees that chicken is safe to eat, said more than six dozen USDA inspectors at the nation's largest poultry plants.

May 1, 1992
Government Orders
Even more recently is an article dated March 7,1992, a year later. It states:
USDA scientists have found as many as eight out of ten chickens tested are contaminated with salmonella, and as many as nine out of ten chickens tested are contaminated with (other bacteria). Millions of people become ill every year after eating contaminated meat, several thousand die.
If we want cheaper chicken, is this how we want it, or do we want the systems we have in Canada? I suggest that this legislation and the amendments before us today have another purpose to them. The pricing authority under the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act that allows the producers of Canada to price their products based on a cost of production formula is on the way out.
I would be very surprised if the national marketing agencies are not being stripped of their powers and will soon lose these price setting authorities due to the direction of this government. I would also be very surprised if the National Farm Products Marketing Council has not already received its marching orders in relation to the cost of production formulas used to establish prices for the efficient producer, prices that provide a return for management, labour, investment and the efficient producer. I expect these agencies will have to have abandon these prices in the very near future. They are under pressure to do so.
Let us look at what is happening in that system which the various pressure groups are pushing hard to do away with, claiming that prices are too high. First let me just say what happened south of us. In the United States the government spent $757 million to buy surplus dairy products, along with price supports that cost the average U.S. householder $100 per year.
As I said earlier, only our industrial milk receives a subsidy. Poultry does not receive one red cent and it has not since agencies came into being.
In 1983 the U.S. government paid its farmers $2.5 billion to remove dairy cows from the industry. That was a supreme sacrifice on the part of cows. They had to pass under the golden arches and come out as hamburgers. To placate the worries of ranchers who were competing for that same meat market, Congress has to authorize another $400 million to buy up the surplus beef that resulted.
It also subsidizes exporters that sell milk abroad. These exporters buy milk on the open market and sell
the product for less than they paid. However they are subsidized to make up the difference, plus a small mark-up. That government spent $46.6 million on this.
If we look at the stability and the economic foundation of that industry, they simply do not exist. A report of the U.S. general accounting office shows that between August 1990 and May 1991 prices paid to farmers in the U.S. for milk dropped by 21.5 per cent. However, milk prices in supermarkets fell by just 4.6 per cent and the price of cheese and other products only dropped by 1 per cent.
Who skimmed off the profits? In the U.S. dairy industry there is absolute chaos with thousands of producers being forced out of business every month. I read in a weekly American farm newspaper this week that they expect the prices to drop even further. Had they instead passed on those prices to the consumers, one university study pointed out that cheese prices would have dropped as much as 48 cents a pound at the retail level.
These findings are very similar to my study Compare the Shared Phase One that I published last August. Wheat prices in Canada dropped by 43 per cent to the producer between 1980 and 1990. Yet the price of whole wheat cereals increased by 192.4 per cent and soda biscuits by 235 per cent.
We have the best marketing systems of any country in the world. Why should we revert to something that is so utterly ridiculous as what is being proposed in the direction we are being pushed by some of the very large business interests in this country?
When I look at the returns to the agriculture producers in Canada, the five-year rate of return on assets including all government payments to the Canadian farmers but excluding farmer-owner labour, those returns were 6.2 per cent.
By contrast, Canada's food manufacturers have an average five-year rate of return of 16.9 per cent. One manufacturer had a five-year average return of 69 per cent and a one-year return of 192.7 per cent.
If this industry is to stay healthy in Canada all sectors have to have a return on investment, management, labour and risk. Five major food distributors in Canada had an average five-year rate of return of 17.1 per cent.
May 1, 1992

In the dairy industry, the return to producers is approximately 9 per cent, and in the poultry industry it may be slightly higher, between 9 and 10 per cent. Why all the fuss by the big corporations and the Consumer Association of Canada against our marketing systems?
Why are they not pointing their finger at others who are making far more in the rate of return than our producers? By comparison, the Canadian banks had a five-year average rate of return of 13.3 per cent.
Our food distribution system is doing very well. It ranks right up there, according to the The Globe and Mail's Report on Business, in the top 1,000. I am not taking a shot at the retailers at all. I want to put this on record.
The normal food retail store does not make a big return on the dollar volume of business because normally it is only perhaps 1.5 cents or 2 cents and sometimes it is 3 or 4 cents. It does not make a big return on that but you have to realize it turns its inventory over 27 times a year. In the food distribution sector, it is abut 18 times a year.


Thomas Hockin: It is having trouble, old fellow.


Ralph Ferguson: It is not really having trouble, because the biggest retailer chain in Canada last year, if you look at its annual report, had its best year in quite some time.
One chain in western Canada, operating only from Thunder Bay west, sent $538.7 million in dividends back to the parent company in the U.S. and it borrowed $474 million to do that. It is in its annual report, and guess who is going to pay the interest and pay back the principal? It is going to be the consumers of Canada who pay that back, and yet they want cheaper prices.
I indicated earlier that the average retailer is not making a huge return on his dollar volume. I want to make that very clear, but the product is turned over on an average of 27 times a year.


Thomas Hockin: Just defending small business.


Ralph Ferguson: Good enough.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: As you should with vigour.


Ralph Ferguson: The interesting part is that we are told that we have to become more competitive.
Government Orders
In the food distribution sector, the level of profits is slightly over 7 per cent more than with a comparable industry in the United States. I should point out that the average Canadian food distributor had 190 per cent more profit on sales than the average Canadian retailer in 1989 and 1990.
Canada put together the systems, beginning with the Canadian Wheat Board in the 1930s, I think it was 1935. It was, incidentally, brought in by the Conservative government of the day.
It was brought in to protect the producers of this country against the concentration of power in the marketplace at the time. Those powers are now being slowly but surely eroded by this administration.
I want to comment on a news article in which my colleague from Winnipeg-St. James was quoted recently. He pointed out that the flow of grain that is going to start from Canada to the United States markets is going to increase. It is a flow of grain that does not come under the Canadian Wheat Board system due to this government's action.
I should point out that recently I compared the returns for a 10-year period of the Canadian wheat producers in western Canada to those of the U.S. sales on-board ship in the Mississippi or the Texas gulf coast. Eight years out of ten, our Canadian producers return was substantially higher than the level of price received for that product.
This shows the value of this system to our Canadian producers, who produce the highest quality product of anyone in the world. They are obviously recognized around the world for the quality and their ability to supply the markets.
Slowly but surely that system is being eroded by the actions of this government. Consequently, this is the basis of my fears.
Something is very wrong in our system. Something is very wrong when this government starts taking away these systems. It has completely ignored the fact that five top companies in Canada account for 69 per cent of food distribution.
I am very concerned that we look at this very seriously. I am very concerned that the fanners of Canada are being sacrificed by taking away some of the powers they have now. They are being sacrificed by being told they have to compete in world markets and compete with world prices for our own domestic markets when their

May 1, 1992
Government Orders
input costs are about 25 per cent higher than those in the country to the south of us.
There has to be a level playing field and it has to include input costs, food standards and quality standards. It has to reflect the need for an adequate supply of high quality Canadian food for our consumers at reasonable prices.
I submit here today that our Canadian fanners, through the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and our other piece of legislation, have met that challenge. They supply our Canadian consumers with large quantities of wholesome, good food at very reasonable prices. We have to maintain those systems and ensure their continuation. We cannot allow them to be chipped away and have their powers eroded.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House my speech must be confined to something under 20 minutes and I will fit into that range.
I was very interested in what the speaker before me said when he took a very broad range approach at third reading of this bill and spent some time dealing with his concerns that the whole concept of national marketing boards is at risk with this government.
I believe that is probably the case, but in the 20 minutes I have, I wish to confine my remarks to the actual changes the government has proposed to that marketing legislation and point out what it has done. I believe it has probably set the stage for a very easy move to what it has been describing in its rhetoric as a new age of marketing boards, a new style of marketing agency. All it will have to do is cut part II out of the act as it now stands after today.
Part 1 of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act establishes a National Marketing Council, which my friend from Lambton-Middlesex served on and which he mentioned at the beginning of his remarks. This is the council that is made up of producers and consumers and sometimes other individuals appointed by the government to overview the marketing and the business being conducted by agencies which might be set up as national agencies under part II of the act. It is under part II that the supply managed agencies have been established since 1972. The agency is for eggs, chicken, turkey, hatching eggs, et cetera.
The amendments we have been dealing with in Bill C-54 are amendments which establish a new part II.
These part III agencies will not have the depth and the scope of the part II agencies. They will simply be established for the collection of levies for promotion and research.
Under the Constitution, a lot of members of the House who are here today realize that agriculture is one of the shared jurisdictions. As long as the agricultural product is inside of a provincial boundary it is guided by and is a provincial responsibility. Therefore, production in this country is basically seen to be a provincial responsibility.
However, once that product has to move in trade or commerce across provincial boundaries, it becomes a federal responsibility. Therefore, the federal government has tended to take charge of trade and commerce aspects of agriculture, of the kind of regulation that is required to make trade simpler and to get it into other countries because the federal government is also responsible for international trade.
What is being proposed with this new part III would be to set in progress a system that would permit producers to establish a marketing or check-off levy to be used for promotion and market research of a commodity under this new part III. They will then be able to go to the federal jurisdiction and ask for the power for those levies to be taken on the same product that is imported into Canada.
We have heard from beef producers and some of the horticultural producers. They might be interested in utilizing part III as a means of collecting levies whereby they could use the levies to promote their products in Canada and outside Canada as a means of expanding the market.
There were some problems that emerged when we began to investigate how this process might work. I would like to spend a few moments going through what I see as being some of the problems with this particular approach.
I have a bias and I will begin by stating that. The best and most efficient way for agriculture products to be marketed and promoted is through the kind of marketing boards that are possible under part II of the existing legislation. I speak as having had some experience in
May 1, 1992

this. When you go into another country to try to push pork sales, which was the case in my experience, or beef or any other commodity, it is much easier to promote that product when you are dealing with the potential buyers if you can sign a contract with them after you have convinced them of the great things that Canadian pork can do for them as Japanese businessmen, consumers or Japanese wholesaler-retailers. If you are able to sign a contract for the particular kind of cuts you have interested them in, then that is effective promotion and marketing. It is an effective way of promoting a product.
If you go over to the Japanese, in this case promoting beef which is not marketed under a marketing board in Canada, and convince them of the joys of eating, marketing and selling Canadian beef, and you have them all convinced and they are all enthusiastic about having some Canadian beef to market, they will ask how they can get this. You will say you will arrange a further trade mission to come over and maybe discuss that very thing and maybe you can get some of the processors interested in coming to talk to them.
Their enthusiasm wanes and the delay between when the processors may or may not arrive causes the whole effect of your promotion to have been considerably downgraded.
As well, there is a problem when taking this commodity-by-commodity approach and concentrating only on the promotion of the counter-promotions that are going to occur from similar commodities. When beef increases its promotion funds, what do you expect pork producers to do? What do you expect chicken producers to do? They too are going to retaliate by adding to the amount of promotion funds collected from producers.
In the end what you have is a system that does a very good job of collecting a lot of extra levies from producers. That is all to the credit and the good of advertising agencies which engage in promotion, but it does not put any more money in the pockets of the producers as a result. So there are some problems with the concept.
When we looked deliberately at the legislation, we noticed that new part III does not mention anything about the spending of the funds and accountability that the producer group so established has to comply with. There is nothing that says what proportion of the product
Government Orders
the levy can be against. It does not say whether it can only be on 1 per cent of farm sales or whether it can be as high as 100 per cent. The legislation is absolutely silent on that matter.
When I attempted to introduce amendments to the legislation through Parliament a few days ago, government members sat silent. When the vote came they shouted the proposal down when I proposed that the size of levies should not exceed one-half of 1 per cent of the farm-gate price. They wanted to leave it wide open. They did not explain why they wanted to leave it wide open. They were silent as to why. They simply thought it was not a good idea for Parliament to put limits on this and future ministers as to how big those levies can be.
The legislation is a little sloppy with regard to implementation. It says only that the minister or the marketing council have to be, and the word used in the legislation is "satisfied" that such an agency needs to exist.
Essentially, it is possible for a minister and his council, after all he appoints the council, to establish an agency almost at will. There is no real requirement for hearings, unless the marketing council decides to challenge the minister on it. If the marketing council and the minister are simply satisfied that such a promotion agency should exist, it will exist.
On the other side, there is no way in the legislation for producers to bring to an end such a promotion agency. I attempted to put in such amendments to the bill stating that where 5 per cent of the contributing producers petition the council, a hearing would be held to decide whether the agency would be continued, but that was shouted down by the government side as well when the vote came.
These agencies that may be established for collecting levies for promotion and so on also can collect from importers. I thought that it only made some sense if importers were consulted as well and were involved in the process. The legislation is not terribly clear on what role or how much consultation would be involved for importers either.
As I have already said, the legislation does not limit the size of the levy. We presume it could be up to 100 per cent. We suppose that the councils and the minister

May 1, 1992
Government Orders
would realize that that was far beyond the call of common sense, but government members refuse to allow Parliament to put a limit on this minister or any future ministers in that regard.
Another thing I am concerned about in this legislation is that it does not provide any requirement as to how the funds collected under these levies will be spent. I have spent some time reviewing a number of provincial agencies that have been established in the various provinces to do this so-called promotion.
Some of the agencies are extremely inefficient in converting a farmer's money into promotion and research funds. A great many of them put less than 50 per cent of the funds that they collect for the purposes of promotion and research actually into promotion and research. In other words, over half of the moneys collected are spent in the agency's own administrative costs. Often times these agencies have been struck in some of the provinces for the purposes of establishing an organization and a financial basis for a relatively small group of people claiming to be a commodity group. I submit that does not serve Canadian farmers very well.
I thought it only made sense for Parliament to levy some requirements through this act that the bulk of the funds, and I had suggested for discussion purposes at least 80 per cent of the funds, collected should in fact go for promotion and research. Again, the government members shouted that down and said that no, they did not really have to. We can accept by their thinking that virtually none of the moneys collected for that purpose actually have to go to that purpose. The agency seems to be responsible for that. The act remains silent as to what one would think was normal logic that the bulk of the funds should go for promotion and research since that is what they were collected for.
The act was also silent, although some of the government spokespeople mentioned their continued responsibility for research and trade promotion, on a firm legislative commitment that the federal government is still going to carry on the same proportion of responsibility as has been the case in the past.
That is important because the federal government's support and financial commitment to research and to trade promotion has not been keeping up with inflation and the proportion of trade that we have in the world. They have been backing off from their responsibility.
Some of us fear that new part III in this legislation will be used as a crutch on the part of this government to encourage farmers to go out and collect their own money if they have a particular research project or particular type of promotion they want to do. The government will simply use part III to get away from their longstanding commitments in this area and simply tell the farmers: "Look, you have the power under part III of this national Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act to go out and collect the funding for that and to fund it yourself. We wash our hands of responsibility for this".
Because of all of the shortcomings in the legislation, I think it will be of dubious utility to the farming community. Its effectiveness and efficiency are not going to be great for the reasons I have outlined because of the cross-commodity competition that it will engender and the ineffectual means that the commodity groups will be limited to in terms of pushing new products and pushing into new markets.
Even though the government says that this bill is attempting to enhance competitiveness, it has missed a great opportunity to encourage producers in this country to use part II of the old legislation which would have made Canada's producers more competitive. It would have given producers of more commodities a chance to expand into new markets in a meaningful way that would have provided a true system of integrated market penetration where the promotion, the research and the product all follow together because they are under one roof and on one desk through a national marketing agency.
The producer check-offs that are used now are certainly less than efficient. A great many of them spend less. They spend barely half of the funds collected. Some of them spend less than half of the funds they collected on the purposes for which they were collected, namely promotion and research.
May 1, 1992

I do not expect great things from this. I do hope, however, that the suspicions of my hon. friend who spoke before me from Lambton-Middlesex are not borne out, that in fact the government does not have in the back of its mind as part of its long-term plan to do away with existing national marketing agencies.
Part II continues to be a vital part of the marketing system in the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. The government will begin to encourage producers of other products to use that part of the act to set up national agencies, not just for supply management purposes but as single desk selling agencies and function like the Canadian Wheat Board for the international sales of wheat and barley. This kind of an agency could be set up for a more directed marketing approach for pork, potatoes or apples. This is the way for Canadians to penetrate world markets. It is the most logical approach.
I only regret that the government did not choose to put its efforts into making part II agencies work better instead of creating a side show with these part III agencies which I contend will be expensive, inefficient and quite ineffectual.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, I listened with very great interest to our colleague here in the House, the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, who has been a farmer for many years and who obviously knows what he is talking about concerning the importance of our agricultural system in Canada.
Since my colleague described the present situation in the United States with respect to grading and the inspection system, we are inclined to think that we here in Canada are far ahead of our southern neighbours when it comes to inspection and ensuring that all products on the market are in perfect condition and safe for the consumer.
My colleague from Lambton-Middlesex indeed showed that this bill in particular goes a little farther than was believed, in that the supply management system that we have here in Canada has served our farmers well. As my colleague showed, poultry producers are assured of reasonable prices that meet their production costs, but we see that their profit margin is very small.
Where is the problem, he asks, and so do I? We guarantee a product that meets all the inspection requirements and our standards are among the highest if
Government Orders
not the highest in the world. Products in Canada are sold at a very reasonable price when you consider that retail prices are merely 1 per cent higher here than in the United States. As the hon. member said, we have in Ottawa the best prices that can be found in any capital in the world.
The question is then, as my hon. colleague asked, where is the problem? Indeed, what major national, transnational and multinational companies have in mind is to maximize profits. And so they will, but at what price? Would we be prepared to compromise Canada's good name by selling substandard products, whether it be eggs, poultry or beef for that matter?
In southern states, according to a U.S. T.V. broadcast, the market is severely flawed. My colleague from Lambton-Middlesex has clearly showed, with positive proof, that we have an extraordinary advantage here in Canada, in that our prices are among the best in the world.
We should therefore look out and it is the role of the members of this House to look after the best interest of all Canadians. We cannot count on big companies or multinationals to satisfy perfect health requirements. We saw in the United States the big corporations leave that aside. The inquiries that were made revealed serious flaws.
In Canada, it is obvious that we cannot have that. However, if we let the situation deteriorate to the point where the biggest stakeholders would literally dictate to the government the conditions for "productive" production, if we want to be competitive, there is a limit. I do not think anybody is opposed to ensuring that the inspection is conducted and that no detail is overlooked to ensure compliance with all the sanitary requirements as regards agricultural production as a whole in Canada.
As my colleague demonstrated, this bill as a whole presents a risk and we must be aware of that. It is obvious that Canadian farmers are not among the richest people in the country. Given the number of hours they work, those farmers are entitled to a reasonable profit. The figures all show-and they are not from me nor from my colleague, but from Statistics Canada-that our farmers make a profit that is below average if you look at all the businesses in the country.
Our role here, and especially the role of the government, which is responsible for the administration of the country, is to guarantee to the population that our production cannot in any way, be contaminated, that we can be assured that all products meet those requirements that are so important for the population.

May 1, 1992
Government Orders
In concluding, I hope, as my colleague mentioned, that we will be vigilant concerning this issue and that we will ensure that all farm products meet those requirements. You can meet those requirements when you are guaranteed a certain price. The inspection that will then be carried will ensure sound management to the Canadian consumers.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. The motion is adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to call it four o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 28(2), the House stands adjourned until Monday, May 4, 1992, at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 4,1992