Debates of May 3rd, 1995

Funding For Cultural Organizations

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague, the member for Richelieu, will appreciate what I have to offer. I am hoping he will pay attention because I think he will be delighted with the message I will present to him and to his colleagues.

He has recognized the dilemma that has long faced Canada's guardians of our cultural identity, how to carry out long term projects successfully when funding is awarded on an annual basis.

Government understands this dilemma. In the interests of finding better ways to do business, the government made its commitments in the red book, which the member for Richelieu has mentioned, by promising multi-year funding to cultural organizations.

This is in accord with the government's overall plan to make Canada more fiscally responsible and economically sound. The government's commitment to cultural organizations is also a reflection of the desire that all Canadians have to see that good business practices become the norm throughout government.

The program review we referred to announced in the 1994 budget was undertaken to ensure the government's diminished resources are directed to the highest priority requirements and to those areas where the federal government is best placed to deliver services.

This review was a comprehensive and rigorous examination of all federal programs and activities, including those of a cultural nature. Its central objective was to identify the federal government's core roles and responsibilities and provide modern, affordable government.

The Minister of Finance announced in the 1995 budget that based on the program review there would be budgetary reductions to ensure the government meets its commitment to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of the gross domestic product in 1996-97.

Cultural agencies in the Canadian heritage portfolio were part of this exercise. Agencies like the Canada Council, the four national museums and the National Archives, to name a few, are now working to implement these reductions and set their courses for the future.

Across Canada there is a wide diversity of cultural organizations operating at all levels and covering the full range of activities that make our Canadian culture something to be proud of. There are in great number museums, theatres, symphony orchestras, art galleries and dance companies all showing the face of Canada to us and to others. They are all worried about their survival. Why? The tradition of funding on an annual basis has greatly impeded their ability to carry out interesting, innovative and creative projects over the long term. It is good business sense to plan ahead but a virtual impossibility if there is no notion of the kind of income that will be forthcoming.

The current reductions have taken their toll on everyone but the cultural organizations like areas of government and other sectors of the country are doing their best to contribute to the success of the government's fiscal strategy.

Under these circumstances it makes sense to give cultural agencies and organizations as much assistance as possible by enabling them to plan their futures with a greater degree of confidence and with the added stability that comes with multi-year funding.

In the February 1995 budget it was announced that the government intends to implement a new expenditure management system. Its objectives are to take responsible spending decisions to deliver the programs and services Canadians need and can afford and to meet the required fiscal targets. Moreover, this system will foster a more open, responsive and accountable budget process. This is what all Canadian taxpayers are expecting from us, greater accountability for the money we spend.

In the face of fixed or declining budgets and the need to adjust to changing circumstances through reallocation, we need a more flexible system to manage our expenditures. With three-year business plans federal cultural organizations can propose a more strategic multi-year perspective to their management. Cultural organizations can prepare departmental outlook documents that will be available to the House standing committees. These documents will explain any significant shifts in an organization's priorities and initiatives over a three-year period while remaining consistent with government wide objectives and fiscal targets established in the previous budget. Committee

members using these forecasts will be in a better position to review and report on future expenditure priorities.

Multi-year forecasts will be based on resources allocated in the federal budget and will set out the strategies to be pursued to adapt to the fiscal and policy environment. The forecast will explain significant resource shifts in terms of priorities and associated initiatives of the organization over a three-year period. It will describe new directions, evolving priorities and objectives for the period.

There is no question in my mind or anyone's mind that our scarce resources can be stretched a lot further if we choose the method of working over the long term. This is a better use of our cultural dollars. We would be foolish to reject it.

Our cultural organizations, whatever proportion of the population they serve, are too important to our national identity to be allowed to sink into oblivion. Our cultural organizations are the caretakers of the rich treasures of our past and of our creative efforts; the very stuff that keeps minds, hearts and souls together. Our cultural organizations teach us about ourselves and let others learn about Canada and Canadians.

The motion being debated today, one that affirms the importance of our cultural organizations, is vital for all Canadians. By recognizing the value of our cultural organizations, by keeping them living and viable institutions we show our belief in ourselves.

Multi-year planning is essential if our precious cultural organizations are to continue to be a vibrant part of Canadian society. We must help them to gain the stability they need to continue to function well as the best reflection of Canada's cultural identity.

[Hugh Hanrahan, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Bloc motion that, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider funding cultural organizations on a multi-year basis in order to promote their stability.

However, it should be noted from the outset that before we start considering multi-year funding we should be examining the appropriateness of our present commitment to cultural funding.

This opportunity also permits me to set the record straight with respect to the Reform Party's position on Canadian cultural industries and artists. There seems to be a perception that we are unconcerned or even disinterested in Canadian culture. That really is a simplistic criticism of our policy.

Our policy is clear and concise. We are simply suggesting and encouraging less government involvement in the funding and promotion of the cultural sector. This has been our message firmly and consistently since the early days of this Parliament. What we want to see is less government involvement.

We promote the idea that the cultural community be given the tools necessary to flourish in an open, competitive, and changing marketplace. That includes less government intervention, less taxation, and less regulatory control, which will ultimately permit competition, not strangulation. Our approach recognizes that a Canadian cultural policy must be sustainable in a world of rapid technological change, one which fosters an environment in which individuals are free to choose. We need to ensure that the industry can make it on its own. This can and should be done through less regulation, less taxation.

We were elected with a mandate from our constituents to bring to this public forum their commitments and concerns, and we will not be intimidated by special interest groups. We do not support the concept of stable multi-year funding to organizations, which should be receiving the funding through the private sector and not through the federal government.

Albertans are demonstrating that they are willing to support the arts without massive federal assistance. So perhaps it is time that this government start to re-evaluate the way in which it is dealing with the cultural sector. This attitude change in Alberta has been perpetuated by the fact that shrinking budgets in all areas of the economy demand that we seek new innovative and creative ways of accessing funds, including the cultural sector.

Big Rock Breweries from Alberta is leading the way as a private sector supporter for the arts. Last year Big Rock provided over $1,000 to over 40 different arts groups. It views its cultural support as a wise business practice and not as a charitable donation. Thanks to the support of Big Rock, groups like the Alberta Theatre Project and the Muttard Public Art Gallery are thriving. Albertans indeed are leading the way in private sector support for the cultural sector. I applaud Big Rock for showing just what the private sector can do if left alone by various levels of government.

I think it is also important to illustrate at this time a few examples of why it is essential to bring back accountability to these cultural organizations. These examples will illustrate that not only does the Liberal Party not have a cultural policy, but the government's funding of these groups is indeed in need of reform.

For example, the artist Stephen Ellwood, an American who came to Canada because we give more money to artists than does the U.S., threw $300 in nickels, or 6,000 nickels in total, off a building and others were discarded in the street. This was to make a politically artistic statement. All this money is at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer, thanks to the Canada Council. If that is not government spending run amok, then I do not know what is.

Do not get me wrong; I truly believe in the freedom of expression. However, I do not believe Canadian taxpayers should be left on the hook for every political and artistic problem we encounter.

The Canada Council needs to be overhauled in its granting practices to ensure greater accountability as to how funds are distributed. It is time we looked at the current structure of the Canada Council to ask how it can continue to exist as we know it today.

Thanks to the Canada Council, the Liberal government is not even addressing the promises made in this year's budget regarding government accountability and reducing government spending. So I would like to thank Mr. Ellwood on behalf of all Canadians for pointing out the hypocrisy of this Liberal budget.

Another example of poor cultural policy was when the CRTC removed the American country music television network from Canadian airwaves. Canadian country artists used to be seen in 32 million homes around the world. But in retaliation for this decision, CMT now refuses to play Canadian artists' videos, restricting their airplay to Canadian homes only.

Promoting Canadian culture by closing our borders is like trying to mix oil and water. Canadian artists themselves denounced this decision, yet it was allowed to continue.

How does the government expect to promote Canadian cultural exports and allow for more consumer choice? It is unclear. Until this type of question can be answered, we should not be securing any multi-year funding to any cultural organization. This government seems to be moving toward a policy of protectionism in the cultural industry rather than one of a free market.

In typical Liberal fashion we are now seeing a flip-flop regarding our cultural policy. One day the government is restricting choice and competition in the country music industry. The next day it is opening up the doors for its Liberal friends in Power Corporation and their American buddies to set up satellite networks across the country.

Through the direct to home satellite debate the government has attempted to deflect criticism by portraying the Reform Party as anti-competition. Nothing could be further from the truth. The government has also said that we should not criticize the process. Wrong again. This can be clearly seen in the direct to home process. The only thing that has been clear in all of it is that Canadians are paying the price for the government's lack of a coherent cultural policy that favours true competition.

If the government truly wants competition, why will it not live up to its commitment to release a comprehensive cultural policy? I think the answer is clear: it does not have one.

I am also quite concerned that this debate is grinding down into a Quebec and English Canada issue. That is not the issue today. The issue we are looking at is entrenching multiculturalism funding and the fact that we as a nation cannot afford it. We are looking at a nationally enforced bilingualism, and we cannot afford it. We also cannot afford the funding of special interest groups.

This government's cultural policy is so misdirected that the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism in a recent interview stated eloquently that we have no national culture. I would like to take this opportunity to respond to that statement.

Most Canadians believe, as Reformers do, that we must uphold the rights of citizens and private groups to preserve their cultural heritage using their own resources but are opposed to any taxpayer funded multicultural programs. The Reform concept of culture is that as Canadians we believe we have something others do not. Collectively we see ourselves as a tolerant, peaceful and independent people.

Canadian culture is not stagnant. Rather, it is in a constant state of metamorphosis. The difficulty is that we continue to debate what our self-concept is. We need to stop struggling with our self-image and accept who we are.

Visually, our culture is an array of images, finely integrated and ever changing. Visual symbols such as the maple leaf, the uniform of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and hockey connect us to one another at the deepest level of our consciousness. This is our Canadian culture. It has nothing to do with money or cultural groups, but has everything to do with us as Canadians.

We should not forget that Canadian culture has been around since our nation's conception and will certainly outlast this Parliament and even the next Parliament. It will do so simply because it is in our hearts and in our minds. It is what makes us Canadians.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville—Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in response to private member's Motion M-213 put forward by the hon. member for Richelieu, which proposes changing the funding practice with respect to cultural organizations to a multi-year schedule.

The need for multi-year planning is necessary for two very important reasons. First, it reflects a desire on the part of all Canadians to see the implementation of good business practices throughout government. Second, it ensures that our cultural organizations will remain vigorous and accountable.

Canada has many cultural organizations, covering the full range of all the activities that make our Canadian culture a vivid

and living experience. We have museums, theatres, symphony orchestras, art galleries, and dance companies, all there as a reflection of Canada's heart and soul and all striving to keep their heads above perilous waters.

Why? Because they have traditionally been funded on an annual basis, greatly impeding their ability to carry out plans for the long term. It is good business sense to plan ahead, but a virtual impossibility if there is no notion of the kind of income that will be forthcoming.

Government understands this dilemma. The government made its commitment to better business practices in the red book by promising multi-year funding to cultural organizations. This is part of the government's plan to help make Canada more fiscally responsible and economically sound.

The 1994 budget announced that a program review would be undertaken to "ensure that the government's diminished resources are directed to the highest priority requirements and to those areas where the federal government is best placed to deliver services".

The program review was a comprehensive and rigorous examination of all federal programs and activities, including those of a cultural nature. Its central objective was to identify the federal government's core roles and responsibilities and to provide modern, affordable government.

In the 1995 budget the government announced reductions based on the program review exercise, reductions to ensure that it meets its commitment to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of gross domestic product in 1996-97. Cultural agencies in the Canadian heritage portfolio were part of this exercise. Agencies like the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the National Library, and the National Arts Centre, to name only a few, are now working to implement these reductions and set their courses for the future.

The current reductions have been a tough bullet to bite, but the cultural agencies, like other areas of government, are doing their best to contribute to the success of the government's fiscal strategy. Under these circumstances, it only makes sense to give cultural agencies as much assistance as possible through this difficult period by enabling them to plan their futures with a greater degree of confidence.

In the 1995 budget it was announced that the government intends to implement a new expenditure management system. Its objectives are to take responsible spending decisions to deliver the programs and services Canadians need and can afford and to meet the required fiscal targets. Moreover, this system will foster a more open, responsive, and accountable budget process.

This is the criterion that Canadians are demanding we apply: greater accountability for the money we spend. In the face of fixed or declining budgets and the need to adjust to changing circumstances through reallocation, we need a more flexible system of expenditure management.

Cultural organizations, through the preparation of three-year business plans, can take a more strategic, multi-year perspective to their management. Cultural organizations can prepare outlook documents that will be available to the House standing committee. With such documents in hand, committee members will be better informed and better able to review and report on future expenditure priorities.

These multi-year outlooks will be based on resources allocated in the February budget and will set out the strategies to be pursued to adapt to the fiscal and policy environment. The outlook will explain significant resource shifts in terms of the priorities and associated initiatives of the organization over a three-year period. It will describe new directions, evolving priorities, and objectives for the period. It is good to reiterate that this outlook document will be developed by the cultural agency itself.

There is no question that working for the long term is a more feasible method of making the best use of scarce resources. If this is a better way to stretch our cultural dollars, then we should go ahead with it.

Our cultural organizations, whatever proportion of the population they serve, are too important to let die for lack of foresight. Our cultural organizations are a precious entity within the Canadian identity. They are the caretakers of our rich past, the caretakers of our creative efforts, the food that nourishes the mind and the heart and the soul.

Our cultural organizations allow us to see ourselves and let others see us and know us as Canadians. The motion we are discussing today speaks to our belief in the necessity of cultural organizations. It is an important one for all Canadians. By affirming the value of our cultural organizations, by keeping them living and viable institutions, we are affirming our belief in ourselves.

In my view we have no option but to encourage multi-year planning for our cultural organizations. We must ensure they can maintain their stability in an uncertain world and have the opportunity to become the best possible reflection of Canada's cultural identity.

[The Deputy Speaker]

To close the debate, I give the floor to the hon. member for Richelieu.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you can certainly understand my amazement at those comments by two members of the governing party, the Liberal Party. I have no difficulty with the position of the Reform Party, because it is true to its platform, to its vision-which I do not share at

all-on the involvement of government in the survival of the cultural organizations mentioned in my motion.

But the contradictions in the rhetoric of the two Liberal members are stunning. They deliver a quasi-philosophical lecture on art, culture and the need for art in our society. They say that these national organizations are essential because they are our very soul, the mirror of our society, the expression of our way of thinking, and the path to our future. In fact, our artists will help us assert our identity.

They serve us some rhetoric and they say that yes, multi-year funding would be better. Of course financing over two or three years would be better. They even say that it was promised in the electoral platform. That is the Liberal Party perspective. However, what are they doing in fact? They are destroying those agencies. They slash their budgets.

The former CBC president did not resign on a whim. He was solemnly promised that there would be no cuts and then they announced cuts of $44 million on one side and $350 million on the other. Now the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is unable to fulfil its important mission, particularly in French Canada.

Now we are told in a wishful kind of way: "Oh! God, would it not be nice to have multiyear funding. It would be better to plan in order to insure the survival of these nobles agencies". But look at what your minister is doing, your government is doing, look at the campaign promises, look at your track record after one year in office. These agencies have been massacred; it is worse than what the previous government did, which you denounced when you were in the opposition.

It is hard to believe one's ears. The government is abandoning these cultural agencies on an economic level, through its February 27 budget, and through the policies, set puppet-like, by the Canadian heritage minister who later on said that he is a friend of the CBC. With friends like that, the CBC does not need enemies. We are told that the government will continue to respect these agencies. We are told that it would be in their best interest to have three year budgets. For years now, they have had only three or five year budgets.

Every time they have to deal with a government that demolishes their policies or makes cuts out of the blue. Now, has this government forgotten to cut in the right places? For instance, it has not cut the tax havens of those who finance its party. How many billions find their way to the Bahamas every year, to banks where they do not even declare the interests they accrue. Yet, a single piece of legislation would be enough to control all that money that is being drained out of the country and all those people who pay no income tax.

Why not deal with that instead of going after our cultural organizations? There was also mention of family trusts. We examined organizations like the other place, which costs taxpayers $50 million a year. What purpose does it serve? Is it a large dormitory, a day care centre? What is it exactly? Could we not make some cuts in there? The government is considering giving a half a million dollar party to announce the appointment of a new governor general. Why? Should we not instead leave this money to the organizations that make up the identity of our two founding nations and to the creators who are, in fact, the real soul of a nation?

No, it is not the answer I get to a motion as direct as this one, a motion that every organization was demanding, a motion that, in my mind, goes without saying. Whether an organization is economically, socially or community oriented or whether it is a public institution, it needs to know where it is heading and how much money will be available. That is just what we are asking the government. We want them to tell us that, for the next three years, we can rely on a fixed budget, a budget that will not change according to the mood of the finance minister, or according to the mood of the Canadian heritage minister or, with regard to copyright, for example, according to the mood of the industry minister.

We are asking for some planning with normal and formal commitments, which will then be adhered to. But the reply is: "Yes, this is fine in theory, but the fact is, we have to cut". I will conclude by saying that this motion, that I thought could get unanimous approval from all the members and from all the people who believe in planning, is getting approval only in theory. But in fact, as far as the money granted these organizations is concerned, the government is doing exactly the opposite of what it committed itself to doing in its red book and in its policy statements.

[The Deputy Speaker]

May we call it 6.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I raised with the Minister of Finance the question of an inheritance tax.

I refer to that now very well quoted StatsCan report that examined the basic causes of the accumulated debt of the country and found that 44 per cent of the debt was the result of the compounding effect of a record high interest rate or monetary policy. Fifty per cent of the debt was the result of forgone revenue due to a series of tax concessions. One could call a number of these tax loopholes.

A member of the government, when he wrote to the Department of National Revenue recently, asked whether someone entertaining clients as a business person, whether their hotel expenses, a massage at a fitness club, a dinner at a posh restaurant, the cost of an escort service, night club shows, floor shows, dinners including $200 bottles of wine and a cruise on the river, would be included as a legitimate tax deduction.

The report back from the revenue department said yes, they would be, including the escort service. It was suggested the way the escort service was described ought to be changed, that they were essentially tour guides, body guards or interpreters. To describe them to be for sexual purposes would not be considered acceptable by Revenue Canada but they could be considered under these other categories.

The point I was making was if so much of our debt is as a result of the number of tax loopholes, why do we not close the loophole of the inheritance aspect?

I pointed out to the Minister of Finance that virtually every OECD country, with the exception of two, has an inheritance tax for those people who inherit large amounts of money. I am not talking about a home or a family farm or a family business. I am talking about someone who receives an inheritance, let us say, in excess of $1 million. Virtually every country in the world would ask that a tax be paid on that vast inheritance. We could consider a ceiling of $1 million.

The Minister of Finance spoke around the issue. In this desperate time when we are seeking to find ways and means of eliminating the deficit and the debt, when every other country in the world virtually has a tax on the inheritance of large amounts of money, why would we not?

It is fair to say that the primary benefactors of this tax loophole are the very wealthy, people who inherit $20 million or $50 million through their families at the time of death. We do not have that tax.

I asked the Minister of Finance to explain why we would not have such a tax at a time when we are cutting back on every social program imaginable, every environmental program imaginable, on health care, on post-secondary education, on vocational training and so on. I have yet to receive an answer.

Perhaps when I sit down the person responding on behalf of the government will clarify why Canada is rather unique in this aspect and has chosen not to tax those individuals that inherit vast amounts of money.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the introduction of an inheritance tax would be a very complex way of raising a relatively small amount of additional tax revenue. In fact, based on OECD experience, an inheritance tax would contribute less than 1 per cent of federal tax revenues.

This revenue potential is small compared to the high administrative and compliance costs that it would entail since another tax collection operation would have to be established. This would require measures to obtain and verify information on wealth transfers at death, as well as complex rules to capture tax planning in order to avoid paying taxes.

Moreover, Canada already has a tax system which derives considerable revenue from wealth holders through the taxation of capital gains at death, property taxes and certain taxes on transfers of property. Revenues from property taxes in Canada are higher than the combined revenues from property and wealth taxes in all other OECD countries with the exception of the United States.

Rather than introducing a new tax that would be very complex and add a significant tax compliance burden, the budget introduced a number of tax measures which affect high income Canadians. An example of such a change on the personal income tax side is the elimination of tax advantages that flow from the establishment of family trusts.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just recently I raised a concern I have regarding the United States embargo on the island and the people of Cuba.

Tonight I would like to deal quickly with the Torricelli, the Helms and the Burton bills and amendments which are affecting drastically the trade relationships between Cuba and other parts of the world. The United States of America through these bills is having a direct impact on a great number of institutions and trading practices involving a great number of countries.

We know that the United States is one of the great countries of the world, a country that I and many people envy for its spirit and for its energy. We know that it has corralled and harnessed this energy and spirit and the resources to become one of the greatest nations in the history of mankind.

These bills are also among the greatest that have been created by the human mind, practically 99 per cent pure; so pure they could be used for classical examples in sociology classes, social political classes, political science classes, psychology classes, communication classes and so on. All over the world, 99 per cent pure propaganda.

It is mind boggling when we read what these bills contain. These bills pose restrictions and controls not just on individuals but on corporations, financial institutions, even the United Nations. Through these bills the American government is so intent on controlling its people to prevent them from trading

with Cuba and also those in other countries who might be trading partners with the United States.

That means we will suffer terribly because of our relationship in our trading practices with Cuba. As a result that will affect our manufactured products of sugar and so on that we trade with the United States.

The United States is interfering through these bills with the suspension of Cuba's membership in international organizations plus using many more tactics. Since 1962 there has been an embargo imposed on this island. However, even though these people have been rationed on every single purchase since those years, the spirit of revolution has prevailed and the people are survivors.

If they were dissatisfied to the point where a revolution would take place to overthrow Castro, it would have taken place many years ago. The bill tells us the acts of the Castro government are a threat to international peace. I do not know what that would be called. However, it is a threat to international relationships. It jeopardizes all relationships and all the bills we have formulated and passed over the many decades. It is country that classifies itself as our best friend.

I went to Cuba. It is amazing what those people have done under unbearable conditions and how resourceful they are. It is probably the best educated population in the world, no doubt about it. They have sent 20,000 doctors all over the world, chiefly to third world countries. No other country can match that. That is a threat to peace?

Cuba has the finest genetic research centre. It has probably the finest cardiac centre in the world. Is that a threat to peace? When the Chernobyl incident took place the Cuban government took in over 35,000 victims at no cost to them. It built a huge resort to keep children and families in dozens of beautiful homes at no cost to the victims. That is a threat to peace?

What did Canada do for these victims? What did the United States do? What did other countries of the world do for these people? Nothing.

As I said, the spirit of revolution prevails-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has expired.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, as currently drafted these bills would clearly adversely affect Canadian trade and economic interests if they were passed into law.

Not only do their provisions violate U.S. obligations under NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, but they are also inconsistent with generally recognized principles of international law. The proposed import prohibitions on sugar and sugar containing products are a particular concern. If enacted, they could affect Canadian exports to the tune of $500 million a year.

The Government of Canada is strongly opposed to the measures in these bills and we are vigorously conveying Canadian concerns to both the administration and Congress. The Minister for International Trade has repeatedly raised our concerns with the U.S. trade representative, Mr. Kantor.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has also made it clear that, while Canada and the United States may share similar long term goals of democracy and economic reform in Cuba, Canada has no intention of agreeing with U.S. attempts to impose its Cuban embargo through secondary boycotts on third countries.

Ambassador Chrétien has written to members of Congress urging them to oppose the bill. Other governments also share our concerns and we are maintaining close contact with them in order to co-ordinate responsive efforts.

Earlier this week, the U.S. administration's response to Congress on this bill was released. We were pleased to see that the administration has taken into account Canada's concerns. In particular, the U.S. administration opposes the provisions in the bill that would impose an import prohibition on sugar and sugar-containing products.

Finally, we expect the administration will put strong pressure on the U.S. Congress to ensure that the legislation is modified.

[The Deputy Speaker]

A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)