House of Commons Hansard #130 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was amendment.

Topics

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

The member for Verchères, on a point of order.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention that I do not see a quorum in the House.

And the count having been taken:

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

We now have a quorum.

The hon. member for Laval East.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Bloc

Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC

I rise today to speak on the bill to implement the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. I wish to deal more precisely with the amendment presented by the Official Opposition, which is aimed at adding new clauses, namely clauses 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, on page 3 of Bill C-57.

First, clause 3.1 proposes to establish a process for consultation with the provinces regarding three specific issues. It is important for us that the Canadian government establish, before the agreement comes into force, such a federal-provincial mechanism to implement the agreement. This is the first issue about which provinces should be consulted wherever the implementation of the agreement relates to a matter within provincial legislative jurisdiction. For example, the federal government should be obliged to consult the provinces on matters relating to copyright, agriculture, environment and labour. Sovereignists are not the only ones demanding such measures.

Since 1988, the provinces have demanded to be consulted in connection with the Uruguay Round trade negotiations. If we take a close look at what is happening next door in the United States, we see that such measures have already been introduced. In the Statement of Administrative Actions, the U.S. government statement on the implementation of the GATT agreement, it says, and I quote: "these consultations", and this refers to consultations with the American States, "will begin immediately upon enactment of the implementing bill".

In the bill now before Congress in the United States, there is one specific section on the consultation process between the U.S. federal government and the States. Section 102 of the bill, part B, under the heading: "The relationship of the agreement to United States law and state law", explains how consultations between the States and the central government are to proceed. If the Canadian government refuses to support the Official Opposition on amendment 3.1, this would mean that my federal colleagues have an even more centralist vision than the U.S. government and that they consider the provinces to have less power than the American States.

If that should be the case, members who vote against our amendment will have to tell the Prime Minister of Canada to keep quiet, when he says Canada is the most decentralized country in the world. A federal government that would refuse to undertake to consult the provinces on matters over which they have jurisdiction is centralist in the extreme.

The second point on which we believe consultation with the provinces is important is dispute resolution under the agreement. Without this amendment, Bill C-57 puts absolutely no obligation on the federal government to consult the provinces, even when the disputes affect them directly. In recent disputes about magnesium, softwood lumber and beer, to name only a few, the federal government was under no obligation to consult the provinces. This amendment is therefore essential if we are to respect the jurisdictions of the provinces.

In their bill, the Americans also provide that the federal government shall consult the States when trade disputes are reported to the World Trade Organization. Clause 102, Part C, paragraph iii), clearly states that every state of the union should be actively involved at every stage of consultation and at each subsequent stage of any trade dispute resolution process.

Third, we want the provinces to be consulted on major economic issues. Clause 145(4) of Bill C-57 states that the territory of Canada may be divided into two or more regional markets. This entails developing specifically regional or provincial policies, hence the need for a consultative mechanism between the two levels of government, to harmonize our policies in view of our international commitments.

Major international fields may have a substantial impact on Canada. Take the monetary policy, employment development or loans to developing countries for example. The provinces are greatly affected by what happens in these areas. For all these reasons, the government must consult them.

Let us now move on to paragraph 3.2. This Bloc Quebecois proposal is to ensure that the Governor in Council and the Minister of International Trade will obtain prior agreement of the provinces before taking one or the other of the following actions.

First, the federal government would not be allowed to change allocation mechanisms for tariff quotas without prior agreement of the provinces. We all know that, as a result of the Uruguay Round, import quotas on dairy products, poultry and eggs were eliminated.

Import quotas were replaced with tariff quotas, which will make the quantity that can be imported increase slightly. What the agreement entitles us to do is to allow a specific volume of imported goods tariff-free in accordance with tariff quotas and to jack up the tariff on the rest.

Bill C-57, however, provides that the minister has discretionary power to decide who can import these products within tariff quotas. In order to avoid log rolling or an apparent conflict of interest on the part of the government, we propose that this decision be made jointly by the minister and the provinces.

The second type of action requiring provincial consent has to do with the agreements negotiated with some trade partners to give them guaranteed access to part of the Canadian market.

While the government is committed to opening up our economic borders under trade liberalization agreements, a new protectionist trend is emerging. Canada is currently negotiating quasi-formal agreements with some countries, which would receive special access to Canadian markets in return for guaranteed access to their markets for some Canadian products. For example, Canada could promise a country that it will buy a certain quantity of their butter during the next year in return for their commitment to buy a certain quantity of Canadian beef in the next 12 months.

Such agreements could have considerable regional impact in Canada. The production of certain goods is often concentrated in a single region. A good agreement for all of Canada could have a disastrous effect in one province in particular. It is therefore imperative that the provinces have their say on this.

Let us move on to Clause 3.3. The Bloc Quebecois proposes that, in respect of subsidized exports, the federal government be very vigilant and have regard at all times to actions taken in the relevant areas by foreign competitors. The GATT agreement provides that export subsidies should be reduced by 36 per cent over a six-year period. In addition, the volume of subsidized exports is also to be cut by 21 per cent.

Canada-that is why we are proposing this amendment-must ensure that its trade partners periodically reduce their subsidies to the products covered by these regulations.

This amendment is especially important since these regulations already favour both the EEC and the United States. Because American and European exports are already more heavily subsidized, reducing the current subsidy rate will main-

tain their export subsidies at higher levels than ours. The poorest countries on earth will be hit even harder than us by these measures, since they often do not subsidize their exports.

This measure threatens the access of developing countries to our markets. We should at least make sure that the wealthiest trade partners honour their commitment to lower the level and volume of their subsidies, in order not to reduce even further our competitiveness on international markets.

Furthermore, under section 424 of the Uruguay Round Agreement Act in the United States, the U.S. government will require the President to submit a report to Congress in which Canada's actions will be reported in order to see whether Canada is complying with the Uruguay Round and NAFTA commitments concerning dairy and poultry products. Why would Canada refuse for its part to anticipate what might happen?

Fourth and last, we propose adding to clause 3.4 guarantees so that the minister can ensure that the discretionary tariffs he establishes in case of shortages for some agricultural products set the price no lower than the Canadian market price. This is an important addition because it seeks to prevent importers from claiming a false shortage if they know that the minister will impose tariffs that are low enough to let them sell their imported products at a lower price than Canadian producers.

In conclusion, I would like to return to the spirit of clauses 3.1 and 3.2 and repeat that the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois are not simply an expression of Quebec sovereignist rhetoric. We want every Canadian province to be consulted by the federal government. We are just demanding the same kind of measure that the United States is about to vote on.

Canadian parliamentarians today have an opportunity to show that Canada is a flexible country. That is how the amendment now being debated should be seen.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Bloc

Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Motion No. 2, which I would like to read again for the benefit of our listeners:

"3.1 Notwithstanding any provision of this Act or the Agreement, the Minister of International Trade shall each year lay before the House of Commons a report taking into account the priorities identified by the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to external affairs concerning"

We are referring here to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

"(a) implementation of the Agreement in Canada;

(b) the trade obligations and commitments undertaken at the international level by the trading partners of major importance to Canada, especially the United States; and

(c) the impact of the Agreement on Canadian workers and companies".

The motion aims at simplifying and facilitating the process for those who would like to address complaints, comments or recommendations to the government. It will allow them to go to a specific body and place where they will get proper attention.

It has often been noted in the past that, when people make representations to their member of Parliament, to ministers or to senior civil servants, these officials do not follow up on the recommendations made to them.

I believe it is very important to have a place where people can make claims and complaints if, for example, their rights have been violated as regards imports, or if changes could result in problems for some industries or for employment.

We think that the responsible committee of the House of Commons could be a permanent forum which would listen to all those who have complaints, so that appropriate recommendations can be made to the minister, followed by the required adjustments.

It is very important that Canadians can have access to a standing committee of the House and that this committee be made known to the public. Indeed, those who wish to complain have to know that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is responsible for receiving their recommendations and complaints so that we can adjust as fast as possible to major changes in the world.

In 1985, I had the privilege to sit on the committee chaired by Mr. Hnatyshyn, the current Governor General, that was reviewing the reform of Parliament and Parliamentary institutions. At that time, we asked Mr. McGrath to undertake an in-depth study on the role of Parliament. In 1985, he stated in his report: "On the eve of international free trade in the economic arena, Canada must have the parliamentary structures needed to become increasingly competitive at the national and international level".

Parliamentarians have been examining this issue for some time now. In 1985, Gulf Canada carried out quite a detailed study on the relationship between Parliament and big corporations as well as the population as a whole. I have made copies of the Gulf Canada report, but among other things, business people stressed the need to know their MPs well. So, businesses and groups tell their representatives that it is rather important that they maintain a good relationship with the members of Parliament who represent them.

People approach their MPs, but often the poor guy does not even know how to reach the right person to ensure that things are progressing well. This is a very unstructured way of doing things, which prevents us, first, from understanding our constit-

uents' needs and working on them and, second, from solving problems quickly. This is an important concern.

This 1985 Gulf Canada report also says that, with time, more and more citizens are trying to make themselves heard by the government. This is nothing new. It has always been difficult for citizens, businesses and groups to know to whom they should address their complaints to get their problems solved. That is why this motion provides for the Committee on External Affairs and International Trade to act as a forum, pursuant to Bill C-57 concerning the new World Trade Organization, to receive those complaints and to make the necessary recommendations to the minister so that he can respond quickly.

Opening international trade will bring about very important changes. Surely, in some industries, it will directly affect employment and businesses. Some adjustments should be made swiftly.

No structure was put in place to hear the claims of businesses, individuals and groups. We think, as this motion says, that the Committee on External Affairs of the House of Commons could and should be the place to deal with these claims so that we can adjust as quickly as possible to the important changes and economic disruption expected in the years to come.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK

Madam Speaker, the purpose of the amendments brought forward by New Democrats today is to commit the government to reporting to Parliament regularly on its activities in the World Trade Organization and especially on the progress toward the development of a social clause to the WTO. In this way we can keep the momentum going for a social clause by ensuring that the public spotlight is kept on the government's policy on this important issue.

A social clause is needed so that the WTO can address not only classic trade disputes between nations but also the problem of what has become known as social dumping, that is a nation's competitive advantage that results from unregulated labour markets and lack of environmental protection regulations.

During the Marrakech conference where the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations drew to a close, expectations were high that the final text of the agreement would include a social clause.

Although the Americans and the French were pushing hard for one, nothing came of those negotiations. The Minister for International Trade was quoted in the press at the time as saying that he was lukewarm to the idea.

The purpose of the amendment is to get a categorical commitment from the government to be actively involved in the development of a social clause in the WTO agreement.

The idea of a social clause is one which enjoys wide support around the world as a necessary counterweight to the liberalization of investment. As a constitution for the new world order of the global marketplace, the WTO agreement as it stands is remarkably one sided in its defence of the rights of investors and silent on the rights of workers. It pretends that labour, social security and the environment are not trade issues.

It is eloquent about the multinationals' right to intellectual property and to the free movement of capital but says nothing about the workers' rights to form trade unions or to have a safe workplace. It speaks loudly about level playing fields but is silent about the most important playing field of all, the one between the employer and the employee.

A social clause is needed to strike a balance between the market efficiencies of liberal trade and investment practices and the social solidarity of all communities that want basic human rights and decent employment practices enforced everywhere where capital is free to come and go.

The multinationals can and do now operate outside the regulatory reach of individual states. We must in partnership with our trading partners establish some way of restoring the abilities of communities to set the ground rules for the marketplace. An unregulated global market effectively allows the multinationals to hold an auction to see which countries will bid the cheapest and least regulated labour and the most lax environmental standards in order to get their investment.

If we do not establish some basic rules about the labour markets and environmental protection, globalization will certainly remain what many observers have called a race to the bottom.

This is the view of the International Labour Organization secretariat which earlier this month recommended to the governing body of the ILO that there should be a social clause to the WTO. This is also the view of the joint committee that recently reviewed Canada's foreign policy. Its report included a recommendation that there should be a co-ordination of international labour and social standards.

I look forward to hearing the views of the members of the committee who can support this amendment as a way of putting their recommendation into action.

During the recent visit of Team Canada to China and the Prime Minister's attendance at the APEC conference in Indonesia, the Prime Minister claimed that the best way to address the problem of human rights abuses in China, Indonesia and elsewhere was to engage in trade to open up these societies. There is nothing in the WTO that prevents countries from joining the WTO, trading with member states and continuing to abuse human rights,

denying workers the right to join independent unions, or allowing child labour.

Support for a social clause which would link trade benefits to basic human and social rights is the only way for us to begin a true commitment to using trade as a way of improving human rights situations in many countries. Without such a clause, the WTO legislates a turkey shoot where the multinationals and their allies in some developing countries can exploit the most vulnerable.

Support for a social clause is the obvious response to globalization by anyone who is not hypnotized by the neo-Liberal rhetoric that the development of world markets unfettered by democratic control is the inevitable and unstoppable result of new technology.

The new technologies in telecommunications and in information technology certainly make it possible for capital to move instantly around the globe or for technologies to be transferred between states very easily. It does not mean that it is necessary for us to let the elites in the multinationals use that technology without any obligations to the communities where they operate.

Globalization as it is now occurring with multinationals glorying in their freedom from democratic responsibility is not an impersonal force of technological innovation. It results from the deliberate choice of governments to liberalize trade and investment policies, to hand over to the multinationals a carte blanche to design a world order that suits their wants and interests. We should not let the free market rhetoric blind us to the fact that we can choose to win back some measure of our ability to impose some community standards on the trade and investment practices of the multinationals.

The idea of a social clause to the World Trade Organization has been opposed by some governments of developing countries as a baldly protectionist measure to deprive developing countries of their competitive advantage in low labour costs and general lack of regulation.

If it is protectionist to protect children from exploitation as virtual slaves, to protect workers who do not enjoy the basic human rights of forming unions or having a safe place to work or to protect the environment from rapacious multinationals then we have no embarrassment in saying that we are protectionists. We have to resist the way that the rhetoric of free trade has perverted the word protection so that any public intervention to protect any public good whatsoever is deemed to be a threat to prosperity.

A social clause to the WTO however would not even fall under the conventional definition of protectionism as regulations that unfairly restrict the legitimate economic opportunities of another country. The proposals that have been made by supporters of a social clause, like the ILO, France and the United States, simply call for a set of minimum standards of the rights of workers to form unions. The effect of such a clause would not only be to respect the rights of workers around the world but also to bring economic benefit to the entire world economy.

It is astounding that advocates of market liberalization trumpet the growth that supposedly results from open world markets during a time when liberalization has led in the developed countries to chronic high unemployment and falling income for workers.

The introduction of a social clause would be an important step forward in raising global demand, thereby stimulating investment and consumption. The advocates of the liberalization of world markets assumes that as developing countries become more prosperous internal social pressures are generated from a maturing and self-confident workplace to insist on higher wages and better working conditions as happened in the industrialized countries.

This assumption fails to recognize that the vast pool of unemployed workers in rural sectors in the economies of east and south Asia for example creates a huge drag on the ability of wages to rise at a reasonable level. Moreover it ignores the fact that workers in many developing countries do not enjoy the basic democratic right to form unions that would allow them to improve their condition. An essential ingredient to raising global demand is therefore to intervene in the world labour markets and to let natural economic forces raise wages. We can thus begin a process of transforming globalization from a race to the bottom into an upward spiral in the living standards of all people around the world.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Ted McWhinney Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to discuss the amendment to Bill C-57 proposed by the hon. member for Laval Est. I respect the hon. member's dedication to federalism and the learning and thoughtfulness that she brings to this task.

Allow me to make a general comment in starting that it is necessary in approaching the matters of amendments to substantive bills to exercise a prudent economy in drafting and at all times to consider criteria of relevance so that the main purpose and thrust of the bill be not deflected.

The opening paragraph of amendment 3.1(a) is one that is of course very dear to the heart of the present government. The Prime Minister of Canada has led a very successful delegation to China with the full co-operation and presence of nine of the ten provincial premiers.

The intention of the government is to proceed in full vigour with ideas of co-operative federalism as developed by Prime Minister Lester Pearson and carried on by his successors. We want to work with the provinces because we recognize that the

common problems of the world community entering the 21st century require a co-operative path in Canada of all the players.

We recognize a certain ambiguity in 3.1(a) but we have no particular problems with that. I simply mention that what is within provincial jurisdiction is by no means clear. There are no watertight compartments. The Canadian rule under the Labour Conventions decision of 1937, much criticized incidentally, is followed by no federal state other than Germany.

In general, the view in federalism is that once an international agreement is entered into the legislative power to implement the agreement follows. That is not the Canadian position. I would stress that all Canadian governments, particularly the present one, have been very respectful of provincial interests and very anxious to ensure co-operation.

Some of the suggestions here seem to go well beyond the scope of an amendment and what good federalism requires or even sensibly suggests. Is it suggested, for example-I looked to see if there was any ambiguity as between the French and English texts-that the issue of trade dispute resolution, the machinery and processes, to which both the French and the English texts of article 3.1(b) are directed is a matter that should be discussed-now that the agreement is there-between federal and provincial governments?

It is a well known Canadian position that we support compulsory third party settlement of disputes. We have constantly raised the necessity for implementing the jurisdiction of the international court as final arbiter. Our problem with many international agreements, including NAFTA, is that this is not something with which the United States is happy. The solution for the United States is to understand the World Court better and to learn to adjust its claims better to the processes of decision making there.

On these issues, Canada obviously will continue to study the matter and continue to raise new issues of dispute resolution. I wonder at this stage what is useful in retaining this as another matter for extended federal-provincial discussion. You could drive a Sherman tank through the proposition "any economic matter of major international significance". I wonder whether it sensibly belongs in an amendment.

It seems to me that what the hon. member for Laval East is proposing reaches other areas of continuing concern for the government of federal-provincial relations including federal-provincial economic relations. The Constitution is not a static institution even though the amending powers may not work. There are enormous possibilities for creative adaptation of machinery by custom and convention.

I would have thought these matters were probably better addressed through another arena and perhaps another minister. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is concerned with studying the issue of continuing federal-provincial economic consultation and co-operation.

I wonder whether 3.1(c) is a useful amendment to Bill C-57. I look at 3.2 and 3.4 and wonder again. Article 3.4 opens a Pandora's box. In essence you are getting into asking the minister to take measures that may run in direct conflict with the international agreements. In any case it is not a matter to be reached by indirection in the interstices of what purports to be an amendment. I would suggest again some prudent economy there.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden, SK

What's wrong with giving in?

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Ted McWhinney Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

I hope the hon. member is listening to the debate. Good. The truth will make you free. It is an important point to remember.

Let us come back to this again. I heard so much tired ideology, 19th century ideas, on trade and commerce that take no account of the fact that we are into the 21st century, that I deliberately eliminated the amendment of the hon. member opposite from my discussion. I am referring instead to the member for Laval East because there are matters of federalism that are of special concern to the government, and we are with them in trying to improve the mechanisms.

My suggestion is to cut down the scope of this amendment and direct it generally to the issue of federal-provincial jurisdictional matters. You will find a continuing governmental concern with attending to that. It may well be the time has come to re-examine the Labour Conventions decision. That is not a matter the government would approach unilaterally. It is a matter on which we can make subtle arrangements, much as the German federation did, and we will do so also.

On the other matters, you have gone beyond the scope of an amendment directed to federal matters. You are really directing attention to the need for some improved federal-provincial economic consultative mechanism. That is well within the mandate of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. In fact we know it is part of the continuing constitutional revision he is undertaking.

That is the main substance of my remarks. I compliment the hon. member for Laval East for the thoughtful intervention. The thrust of it is one that the government takes very much to heart. I would think again that probably the main thrust is in article 3.1(a) and that the other matters could be raised at another time in another arena in a substantive discussion of federal-provincial relations.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

November 24th, 1994 / 11:35 a.m.

Reform

Charlie Penson Reform Peace River, AB

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak at report stage of Bill C-57, specifically to Motion No. 1.

It is important to me and my party that the World Trade Organization be allowed to get up and running very quickly. Canada has a number of disputes we would like to see moved to the international stage such as the wheat dispute and the constant steel disputes between Canada and the United States. It very important to move these on very quickly.

Motion No. 1 never really tries to accomplish this. It goes against the spirit of the trade agreement, especially the fourth part of that section which proposes the imposition of new tariffs at a time when we are seeking to reduce all tariffs worldwide.

In addition, constant provincial consultation will tie the hands of the federal government in trade disputes and international economic matters. Canada should speak with one voice in international forums.

The second part would tie the federal government's hands in allocating tariff quota for supply managed sectors. I am sure that is not what is intended in Motion No. 1, but that could be a result.

I would like to deal with Motion No. 2 which is in the group we are debating this morning. This motion asks for a yearly report to the House of Commons outlining trade implementation and the major trade obligations undertaken by Canada and the impact on Canadian workers and companies.

Those kind of assessments are being done on an ongoing basis. The government should not commit itself to studying the impact of trade agreements on workers and companies on a yearly basis. These studies are carried out all the time by the industries and workers groups and the parties involved should be the ones that assess the impact. They would also be a little bit more effective in studying the impact on their groups rather than having the government do it for them.

I oppose Motion No. 6. It would create unnecessary delays. International relations are the responsibility of the federal government. A House committee can ask the government to justify its actions, including calling ministers and departmental officials before a standing committee at any time. This is an ambiguous motion, one that would be really designed to make more work. That option is already there, let us use it.

Regarding Motion No. 7, the House already has the power to ask the minister for reports when it deems necessary. Regarding the social clause that is being proposed by the NDP, this has already been rejected by the parties that negotiated the GATT agreement for the last seven years and to try and move it back in now would be a mistake.

In addition to that, labour and environmental standards that the members down the line here have suggested would actually have a detrimental effect on the very people they are suggesting to help. If people in underdeveloped countries have to conform to a minimum wage standard and strict environmental standards like Canada has, how can they compete in the world marketplace? It is not necessary. It was recognized that it is not necessary in the discussions that led up to the signing of the GATT. In addition it is a matter that is going to be discussed on an ongoing basis in the second round of the GATT negotiations to see if there is any necessity for it.

I oppose the motions being proposed and urge the House to move quickly to implement the GATT agreement through the World Trade Organization and try to resolve a lot of outstanding issues very quickly with the weight of all 120 member countries behind us.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Madam Speaker, I want to speak to Motion No. 1, especially clause 3.4. Clause 3.4 of Motion No. 1 indicates that in the case where imports exceed the established tariff rate levels, the minister shall impose tariffs to ensure that such products are not permitted at prices lower than those in the domestic market.

The concern that is being raised in Bill C-57 is the proposal that would allow supplemental imports of supply managed commodities as "within accessed commitment", which means they would enter Canada at low or no tariff.

In talking to people in the industry about section 3.4, they have indicated that they think the section is far too restrictive in that it provides the minister with little or no discretionary power.

It is important to understand that in supply managed industries some commodities require from time to time to import and require supplementary quotas. The problem is how do you do that in such a way so as not to allow the industry to use the supplemental quotas as a lever with which to either manipulate prices or to break the supply management system?

Let me give the House an example. A cheese manufacturer who makes frozen pizzas, when asked for future milk demands, understates them. Later when the cheese manufacturer needed milk to manufacture cheese for pizza he would indicate that market demand has all of a sudden increased. Milk could not be sourced in Canada because no one would be prepared to produce that unexpected demand in that short a time. The manufacturer then could apply for and be granted a tariff free supplemental import permit. Other manufacturers would learn of this advantage and either try and beat the system themselves, as the original applicant had done, or pressure domestic producers for a lower price to match that of the non-tariff imports so that they could compete.

That kind of situation could happen if supplemental quotas are granted without restriction. This amendment has restricted the discretion of the minister to the point that it would be unworkable.

The supplemental quota is an extremely important area, especially as a result of the new arrangements under the GATT in which we are moving from import controls to tariff level controls.

The government has assured us that supplemental quotas can be granted in such a way so as not to undermine the supply management system.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Reform

Charlie Penson Reform Peace River, AB

It needs to be undermined.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

I hear the member opposite. The government made a commitment, might I say, to support the supply management system. In the legislation we are trying to ensure we support the supply management system to the extent the agreement that we signed implied. We trying to ensure through the supplemental quota provisions that the industry cannot use those supplemental quotas in such a way as to break the system.

In conclusion I indicate again that the system has certainly changed substantially as a result of the GATT negotiations. The World Trade Organization in Bill C-57 will try to implement those changes into domestic law. As a government we certainly recognize a legitimate concern under supplemental quotas, but we have indicated that those concerns will be addressed if not through this legislation then by some other means.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden, SK

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on Bill C-57.

I want to make a comment in response to the Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra. He made some comments with respect to the bill. He indicated that some of the amendments before the House would actually force the minister to stand up for Canadians. The member is opposed to that. He wants the bill and these types of laws implemented on an international basis so that ministers of our government and our people will not stand up for Canadians whether it be in supply management, the steel production area or any other manufacturing sector.

I want the House of Commons and the people of Canada to understand that the Liberal member from Quadra who represents the Liberal government in the debate does not want to restrict the minister to making any commitments or standing up and fighting for Canadians across the country when it has to happen. I find that very shameful.

I want to make some remarks with respect to the bill on behalf of steel producers of Canada. A steel producer in my constituency, IPSCO, is one of the larger producers or manufacturers of pipe and steel in North America. It actually has some operations in the United States as well, as do many Canadian steel producers. This industry is quite concerned about Bill C-57 as it is presented before the House today because there are no equal legislative footings in the act which would support it in cases respecting anti-dumping.

For example, in the United States there is detailed drafting of legislation and a law in effect which support American anti-dumping processes. Bill C-57 does not provide an equitable amount of protection for Canadian steel producers. The technical wording of Bill C-57 as it applies to anti-dumping should be revised in the view of the Canadian steel producers to mirror as strictly as possible U.S. implementing legislation.

The steel industry in Canada is quite important to the Canadian economy. In 1993 there were $8.6 billion in sales. It is a fully competitive operation, having dramatically raised productivity in Canada over the number of years it has been in existence. We have over $3 billion in exports from Canada mostly to the United States. The Canadian Steel Producers Association employs 33,000 employees, not counting all those who work in downstream operations such as distribution, fabrication and wire production.

Trade is increasingly important to the Canadian Steel Producers Association and in particular to our country. Trade in all goods and services increases economic growth which on its own is good for the steel industry. Trade in steel is becoming increasingly important to Canadian steel producers. It is reflected in the sense that they are concerned about some of the NAFTA and some of the American legislation which is protectionist. They have undertaken to initiate businesses in the United States to get around some of this, thereby costing Canadians jobs in the end. The volume of steel shipped from Canada for export has risen from 30 per cent in 1983 to nearly 40 per cent in the last year.

With respect to Bill C-57 I would like to talk about the sort of proposals the government might consider implementing to ensure that steel producers are not at a disadvantage with respect to American producers. There have been anti-dumping actions between Canada and the United States over the past two years. They have been involved with 11 different anti-dumping cases, 9 of which involved trade between Canada and the United States.

We believe such actions have no place in the free trade area. It would be to our mutual advantage to stop anti-dumping actions between our two countries. A NAFTA working group has been established to look at alternatives to the present anti-dumping regime in North America and has a deadline of December 1995. We want this effort to succeed so that steel can be traded within NAFTA on a basis of price, quality and service, not lawsuits.

So far lawsuits still play an important role. There is a major imbalance between the way American and Canadian anti-dumping processes work. This puts Canadian firms at a disadvantage. It weakens the bargaining leverage of the Canadian government in negotiating change. Bill C-57 does not address this particular issue. That is what I am calling upon the government to do today.

For example, data requirements under the U.S. system are so onerous as to be a barrier in trade to themselves regardless of the outcome of a case. If dumping is found, the Canadian system allows the company either to adjust prices to eliminate any unfair trade practice or pay a known duty. The American system does not allow an exporter to simply adjust his price. He has to pay the duty deposit. Moreover, the exact amount of the duty is unknown until months or years after the sale has been made. The Canadian exporter thus faces uncertainty and financial risk by continuing to export. Anti-dumping actions between Canada and the U.S. should be stopped, but as long as they continue Canada should do nothing to diminish its leverage to negotiate change.

Unlike the American implementation of legislation the Canadian bill provides no guidelines on what would be acceptable evidence. Without guidelines it would be very difficult for a Canadian company to know how to demonstrate foreseen and imminent threat of injury. American companies will have an easier task under their legislation, even though the same principle of the WTO is being implemented.

The U.S. implementing legislation also provides that if dumping diminishes in reaction to the filing of a complaint, the International Trade Commission may discount evidence after the filing in its assessment of injury. This makes it easier for an injury charge to stick. There is no comparable provision in Bill C-57. Again the legislative support for Canadian producers will be weaker than that for American producers.

We have the member for Vancouver Quadra saying: "We don't want the minister to be in charge of providing some support for Canadian producers; we want the American and the international fields to be speaking for our producers". We all know they will not be supporting or speaking for our steel producers.

With the U.S. legislation spelling out in detail options for interpretation for its responsible agency, it will be easier for American companies to get injury findings and for those findings to be defended in any process of review and appeal. There is also a concern in the steel production area with respect to assessing the threat of injury at the time of sunset review, which is after five years.

Bill C-57 does not say anything about how the threat of injury should be interpreted at the time of review of an anti-dumping action, but the American implementing legislation does. It states that the International Trade Commission, in determining whether the threat of injury meets the WTO criteria of clearly foreseen and imminent, may consider that the effects of revocation or termination may not be imminent but may manifest themselves over a longer period of time. And it may consider indirect effects including whether the imports would potentially inhibit a domestic producer from developing improved versions of the product.

In short, if we compare the wording of the U.S. and Canadian legislation to implement the sunset requirement of the WTO, it will clearly be much easier for American than for Canadian companies to prove the need for a continuation of anti-dumping action. It will also be easier for such a finding to be defended on appeal because of the latitude of interpretation spelled out in the American legislation.

There are other things that are quite important to the industry. I want to summarize by saying that the detailed drafting of the legislation should not be allowed to widen the gap between Canadian and American anti-dumping processes which already puts Canadian companies at a disadvantage with respect to their primary market and weakens the leverage of the Canadian government negotiating alternatives to anti-dumping under NAFTA.

The technical wording of Bill C-57 as it applies to anti-dumping should be revised to mirror as strictly as possible the implementing legislation of the United States. That is what we in the New Democratic Party caucus are calling for. That is what the steel producers of Canada and their association are calling upon the government to implement. We are asking that it happen by supporting the motions we have put before the House.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Philippe Paré Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC

I am pleased to support the motion of my colleague from Laval East.

It is important to the Bloc Quebecois that the Minister of International Trade establish a mandatory process to consult with the provinces regarding the implementation of the Agreement wherever it relates to a matter within provincial jurisdiction, any matter relating to trade dispute resolution and any economic matter of major national or international significance.

I will go over each of these elements. Regarding the implementation of the Agreement, a federal-provincial consultation process is required because the federal government cannot interfere in areas within provincial jurisdiction as it pleases and also because it is necessary to harmonize provincial policies with international obligations. What the Bloc is requesting is not excessive or extravagant since our American neighbours have already made provision for such a mechanism. Indeed, the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 provides for the establishment of a consultation process between the federal government and the

states regarding the implementation of any trade agreement affecting these states.

The provinces are not involved either in the dispute settlement mechanism described in this bill. Yet, it is essential that the provinces be involved in a formal consultation process for the development of the Canadian position, especially regarding matters within provincial jurisdiction. How can the federal government prepare itself adequately in disputes over things like beer, magnesium and lumber? Again, let us not forget that, in the same legislation that I mentioned moments ago regarding the implementation of trade agreements, the United States have made provision for the establishment of a consultation process for the settlement of disputes affecting American states. Canada could do the same thing.

Finally, it is also imperative that the federal government do not act alone with regard to economic matters of major significance. These matters have a direct impact on the lives of all Canadians and on the social and economic development of every province. Thus, provincial governments must be consulted on such matters as employment enhancement, monetary policies, etc.

The second major point is the need for agreement with the provinces on tariff rate quotas and selection mechanisms for access to Canadian market. The import quotas set to protect our supply management programs have been abolished by the GATT agreements. They have been replaced by tariff quotas. This affects four agricultural areas: dairy products, eggs, poultry and turkeys.

Under the Canadian legislation implementing the Uruguay Round agreements, tariff quota mechanisms and their allocation are in the minister's hands. The Bloc Quebecois believes it is imperative to limit that power and to make it incumbent on the minister to get the agreement of the provinces for any change in these tariff quota allocation mechanisms.

But there is something more important. Because of the impact on regional economies, it is important that the provinces be involved in allocation. As with the tariff quota allocation, we do not see how the mechanisms for selecting our trade partners to be given access to the Canadian market can be concentrated in the hands of the minister only.

It is imperative that the provinces be involved in this selection process, because of the direct and indirect impact it can have on regional economies. As for the subsidized exports, our amendment seeks to give Canadian industries more flexibility for the phasing out of our export subsidies in compliance with our GATT commitments.

That flexibility is needed to maintain the competitiveness of our businesses on the international market, should their trade partners not comply with these same commitments. Again, we have to insist on the need for a parliamentary follow-up.

This bill gives the minister the authority to levy duties on farm products imported outside tariff rate quotas, so that prices will not be lower than prices on the Canadian market when we are experiencing shortages. We all know that shortages are not always real, but can be engineered.

I am pleased to speak to this amendment moved by my colleague for Longueuil providing for a parliamentary follow-up mechanism. For the sake of openness, it is imperative that we set up such a mechanism to monitor the implementation of the agreement in Canada, trade commitments undertaken by Canada's trading partners, and the impact of the agreement on Canadian workers and companies.

Canada already has a mechanism to monitor U.S. trade practices, especially trade barriers against Canadian goods. That process is open to the public, but no report is tabled in the House. This amendment involves a control of the bureaucratic system by the Parliament of Canada in order to inform the Canadian public as fully as possible, and promote public debate on major issues affecting the Canadian economy.

This same concern about openness can already be seen in the United States. The American version of our Bill C-57 provides for an annual review of trade policies by Congress. It is essential that Canadian elected representatives be informed of the status of commitments undertaken by our trading partners under the Uruguay Round. For example, Parliament should get information on reductions in internal and export subsidies in the United States, the opening-up of U.S. borders to Canadian exports, etc.

More importantly, Parliament should be apprised of developments in trade disputes between Canada and the United States concerning, for example, wheat, beer, yoghurt and ice cream. Our American neighbours are prepared, with the number of consultation processes I mentioned earlier, to settle those disputes. Canada is not in the same state of readiness, and that is why we should implement similar mechanisms immediately.

Since the Liberal Party promised labour adjustment measures in its red book, members opposite should not reject this amendment which provides that the minister should inform the House of new developments in this area.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

Noon

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

Madam Speaker, like my colleagues who already spoke on the various amendments now before us, I am pleased to give my views on amendments 1, 2, 6 and 7. With your permission, I would like to start with amendments 6 and 7, proposed by the hon. member from the NDP.

With respect to amendment 6, I must first say that we subscribe to some of the principles underlying the amendment itself. However, we believe that certain provisions of this amendment will make the World Trade Organization's decision-making process much more cumbersome.

Consequently, we have some difficulty supporting this amendment. We agree particularly on the principle that the changes to be made to provincial legislation must be considered, along with the provincial areas of jurisdiction affected by implementing the Uruguay Round agreement.

I would like to point out to my colleague that we presented an amendment which will require the government to take into account the provisions concerning provincial areas of jurisdiction. So I respectfully invite him to support our amendment instead of his, because his amendment will make the World Trade Organization's decision-making process considerably more cumbersome, as I said earlier.

As for amendment 7, requiring the minister to report twice a year on the state of negotiations on the labour, social and environmental aspects of trade relations, we agree on this principle, of course. However, I repeat that we proposed an amendment which addresses this concern. I regret to inform the hon. member that, during the work of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International trade, our colleagues on the government side were not very receptive to the idea of having only one annual report on the implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements by our main partners, particularly the United States.

I see that the amendment moved by the hon. member of the New Democratic Party, which suggests not only one report but two of them, has even less chance of being approved by members on the government side. Consequently, I would invite him, so that we can be sure that this point will be accepted, to support our amendment, which seeks only one report every year.

Before I go any further, may I draw your attention to the fact that, once again, we do have not a quorum. On the government side, we only have the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Trade. So, Madam Speaker, I would ask you to rule on the quorum.

And the count having be taken:

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Since we have a quorum, the hon. member may continue.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

Madam Speaker, I am impressed with how diligently you have applied the Standing Orders.

I am surprised to hear our colleagues from the Reform Party constantly repeat that we should have Bill C-57 adopted as soon as possible in order for the Uruguay Round Agreement to be implemented at the earliest possible time. I think nothing should stand in our moving as quickly as we can, even though obvious and significant improvements must be made to the bill tabled.

My colleague, the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden, is concerned with the expectations of the steel industry. I can assure him that today's Order Paper also contains an amendment which will likely meet these expectations.

I mentioned earlier that we intended to oppose amendments Nos. 6 and 7, mainly because we wanted to submit concurrent or similar ones which, according to us, would be simpler and easier to implement. With your permission, I will go back to these amendments.

I think our colleague, the hon. member for Laval East, did very well in introducing her amendment. I shall not elaborate further on that one.

However, I would like to add a few comments on the amendment also brilliantly introduced by my colleague from Longueuil. The hon. member for Louis-Hébert mentioned a few things with regard to these two amendments and I would like to shed new information on the subject.

I would like to remind the hon. members in this House that the purpose of the amendment was that Parliament be informed each year about the implementation of the Agreement in Canada, the fulfilment of our international obligations and the impact of the Agreement on Canadian and Quebec workers, according to priorities previously set by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

It must be understood that the Uruguay Round Agreement is anything but a simple agreement between technocrats. It is the result of eight years of very complex negotiations which meant that the various participating governments and States had to make a number of political choices.

The effects of this Agreement are numerous and they affect a great many different areas. The Americans are ready, and we see this in the bill that is now before Congress-to challenge our tariff measures and compare them with the provisions of the international treaties we have signed, and I am referring to the Uruguay Round agreement and NAFTA. They have set up a consultation process to collect information that will be used to challenge our measures, for instance. We must be prepared. We must have the information we need to prepare on defence. In this respect, I note that section 424 of the U.S. bill to implement the Uruguay Round agreement reads as follows:

"The President, not later than six months after the date of entering into force of the WTO agreement with respect to the United States, shall submit a report to the Congress on the extent to which Canada is complying with its obligation under the Uruguay round agreement with respect to dairy and poultry

products and with its related obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement".

This translates more or less as follows: "The President, not later than six months after the date of entering into force of the WTO agreement with respect to the United States, shall submit a report to the Congress on the extent to which Canada is complying with its obligation under the Uruguay Round agreement with respect to dairy and poultry products and with its related obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement".

If the United States makes provision in its legislation for verifying Canada's compliance with the Uruguay Round agreement, we can drop any reluctance we might have about including provisions in our own legislation provisions authorizing Parliament to report on how our principal trading partners, and mainly the United States, are complying with the Uruguay Round agreement.

The amendment in question also refers to the impact on workers and companies, and I would like to expand on this aspect. Paragraph (c) of the amendment proposed in motion No. 2 reads as follows: ``the impact of the Agreement on Canadian workers and companies''.

The report to be submitted by the government should indicate the impact the Agreement has on Canadian workers and companies. This is important and reflects concerns raised by our colleagues in their amendments.

I may recall that this provision in the amendment is entirely in line with a promise in the Liberal Party's red book that the government would assist individuals and firms in labour-intensive sectors of the Canadian economy, such as furniture manufacturing and textiles, to deal with restructuring. As you know, there is a significant concentration of these sectors in Quebec, and especially in Montreal.

With this amendment, the government has an opportunity to meet one of their commitments in the red book which was to consider the impact of the Uruguay Round agreement on individuals and firms, so that subsequently, it can assist individuals and firms to deal with restructuring.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Ottawa Centre Ontario

Liberal

Mac Harb LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, I will speak to Motions Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7, starting with motion No. 1.

We believe the amendment suggested entails many problems and should be rejected. The first problem with subclause 3.1 is that we already have an efficient process for consultation between the federal and provincial governments regarding external trade when the provinces' interests are concerned. The provinces were very well served by these instruments in the implementation of international agreements or the resolution of disputes ensuing from this agreement.

As for subclause 3.2, by requiring the Governor in Council to ask the provinces' consent before doing any of the things mentioned, it would change the current rules under the Constitution. It will give the provinces a veto in international matters.

As for subclause 3.3, Canada cannot subject the implementation of its international commitments to the behaviour of its trading partners. If it considers that they are not respecting their obligations, Canada can then resort to the dispute resolution mechanism, which is usually successful. Canada cannot simply decide not to respect its obligations. It is still in Canada's interest to obey the rule of law, not to go against it.

Paragraph 3.4, the proposal would be contrary to what was negotiated in the agreement, specifically paragraph 4.2 of the agriculture agreement. A central part of the agriculture agreement is the elimination of measures such as variable levies. The effect of this amendment would be to introduce such measures. The government appreciates the interest on the issue of supplementary import of an agriculture product in cases of shortage in the domestic market. However, these matters are currently the subject of consultation with all domestic stakeholders.

We also recommend rejection of Motion No. 2. Committees of the House are always free to request reports from ministers, imposing the statutory obligation. At this point to produce a report would I presume tie Parliament's hands in the future. I suggest it would be a lot more prudent to request such a report as the need arises. Preparation of such a report, I have no doubt in my mind and in the minds of my colleagues, will cost a significant amount of resources both financially and otherwise.

Concerning paragraph (b), this refers to all trade obligations and commitments of Canada's principal trading partners and therefore goes beyond the scope of the bill before the House. Concerning paragraph (c), the impact of the agreement on Canadian workers and companies as a matter of economic analysis, there are methodological problems with isolating the effect of the agreement from other elements affecting Canadian companies and workers.

Concerning Motion No. 6, we recommend the rejection of this motion for the following reasons.

The consultation requirement contained in paragraph 2.1 would be very onerous and unworkable. The World Trade General Council will meet frequently and take numerous decisions that directly or indirectly affect Canadian interests, rights and obligations. The requirement for the minister to consult

with the committee prior to each such decision would require frequent meetings with the committee on a plethora of details and highly technical issues. Moreover, the agenda of the council is often fixed very shortly before its meeting and a prior consultation requirement would hamstring Canada's ability to respond quickly and flexibly to new developments in a manner that takes account of the position of other World Trade Organization members and that effectively advances Canadian interests.

The reporting requirement in paragraphs 2.2 to 2.4 is also unworkable and would have significant resource implications. Some of the information requested is contained in the GATT reports. Other information is restricted under GATT practice and therefore its public release is not permitted. Canada is currently working in the World Trade Organization preparatory committee to have such documents derestricted on a more expedited timetable. These World Trade Organization reports and documents could be made available to a committee of the House.

Finally, we also recommend the rejection of Motion No. 7 because the reporting requirement is onerous and would entail significant resource implications. The minister could in any case report on ongoing negotiations from time to time as appropriate or as requested by a committee.

My colleagues from the New Democratic Party suggest that we introduce an amendment that would deal with the social clause. This suggestion is too late to even be considered. Our answer to that would be that the best social clause this or any other government could offer would be a job.

To that extent, I would suggest that Motions Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 all be rejected.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say very briefly that we are stressing in this motion the necessity for the federal government to consult provinces and establish mechanisms before taking position in sectors which are, formally and constitutionally, within provincial jurisdiction.

In agriculture, for example, we have seen during the last negotiations the impact that it could have on the marketing of eggs, poultry and other products. We believe that the federal should not only consult the provinces but also create a formal mechanism so that, in sectors such as agriculture, culture, and natural resources, provinces are not only consulted but have a say on the position taken by Canada in this international forum.

This supposes that negotiations will go on with the provinces. We are told that provinces will be fully consulted; we fail to see how the government can oppose the amendment we are proposing.

Let us take the American government, for instance. Liberals are of the opinion, and so am I, that the American federation is much more centralized than Canada. Yet, in Part E of the Statement of Administrative Action, the American equivalent of Bill C-57, which deals with the Uruguay Round Agreement Act, sections 102B and 102C provide that the US federal government must not only inform but establish a process to consult the states regarding the general implementation of the Uruguay Round as well as the positions to be adopted during the settlement of commercial disputes.

In the case of lumber, for example, Quebec had to bear the burden of tariffs which were in no way warranted. The problem existed only in British Columbia. Yet Quebec had to pay the price although, strangely enough, New Brunswick was exempt. Why two different treatments, one for Quebec and one for New Brunswick, when the problem was in British Columbia?

If there was a compulsory system like the one we propose, first, we would not come to a point where some provinces, like Quebec, are penalized. Second, the government would have to stop pretending that it is consulting provinces, because there would be mandatory consulting mechanisms which would have to produce results. That means that the position of Canada would be arrived at after due consideration of the powers granted to provinces by the Constitution of Canada.

We are only asking that the government abide by the Constitution and recognize provincial jurisdictions at the international level. We are asking for an extension of the rights of the provinces to the international level in the area of trade agreements and, as long as Quebec remains in confederation, we want Canada to respect provincial rights. If the United States can do it, what prevents Canada from doing the same?

These are the comments I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is the House ready for the question?

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The question is on Motion No. 1, standing in the name of Mrs. Debien.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.