Debates of Oct. 30th, 1996

Canada Labour Code

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

I seem to have the support of one of my Reform colleagues, which is certainly quite welcome, although as surprising as it is unexpected, but it certainly is inspiring to realize that when we discuss these things we can understand each other and convince our colleagues that certain things have to be done.

I believe my time is running out. I would like to add that the National Council of Welfare, a very serious and non-partisan agency which has been around for quite some time, since it was founded by a constituent act in 1966, the National Council of Welfare reminded us that Canadian society has never been as poor, that wealth has never been as unequally distributed, adding that if we had wanted to, we could have wiped out poverty.

I would like to quote what the National Council said in its 1995 report. It recalled the following facts: "Despite the sombre reality, it is not utopian to think that we can win the war against poverty. Statistics Canada estimates that it would have cost $15.2 billion in 1994".

I repeat: It is not utopian to think we can win the war against poverty. Statistics Canada estimates that it would have cost $15.2 billion in 1994 to bring all the poor above the poverty line. This is an enormous amount but certainly not too much, in a country where the federal government and the provincial territorial governments spent about $350 billion in 1994 and where the value of all goods and services produced exceeded $750 billion". We are living in a society where governments spend $350 billion and where we produce $750 billion.

If we had had the common sense to pool our resources and put $15 billion into active measures to fight poverty, today in this House we would not only be discussing the minimum wage, we would also be able to say how proud we are that as legislators, co-operating with all partners, we were able to wipe out poverty. For this scenario to become a reality, however, it is not enough to have a debate. It is not enough to have a government. It is not enough to have a democracy. We need an ingredient that is extremely important and also extremely rare in a democracy, one that is certainly lacking in the government before us. I am of course referring to political courage. Because to raise this $15 billion, we must also do something about the distribution of wealth. And if we want to do something about that, the government would have to have the guts to put a minimum tax on the table, something the opposition has been asking for three years.

However, a minimum tax means taxing a certain number of corporate citizens, who are of course friends of the present government.

Since my time is up, I will say in concluding that we will never do enough to fight poverty.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I support the overall intent of Bill C-35 because it makes at least a tentative move toward the elimination of outdated regulations. It is a step in the right direction. It shows the provinces that the Government of Canada is willing to recognize, at least in part, their ability to make sound financial and humanitarian laws.

However, the bill has one glaring flaw. As I mentioned during second reading debate and as my colleague from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia said yesterday, section 178(3) gives the cabinet the power to set rates if it disagrees with the rates established by the provinces or territories.

We proposed an amendment which would remove this clause and give full jurisdiction over minimum wage rates to the provinces. Surprisingly, though, members of the official opposition did not support our amendment. I can only assume that they are really not in favour of giving more autonomy to the province of Quebec in labour matters. That surprises me. I have always been under the assumption that the devolution of powers was something that was very near and dear to their hearts.

Government members also refused to support our amendment, showing that they are really not sincere about giving more responsibilities to the provinces. Instead, the government continues to waffle on the issue of decentralization. Like parents who try to prolong their kid's childhood, this Liberal government is refusing to acknowledge that the provinces have come of age. Not surprisingly, this is contrary to the red book promise.

Broken promise No. 14 reads: "A Liberal government will work closely with provincial governments to reduce duplication and improve service delivery in all areas where governments are involved".

By clinging to the "Father Knows Best" tradition, the government is failing to live up to yet another campaign promise.

With this bill, the government is implying that it wants to better the lot of workers yet it stubbornly clings to the old myths. It wants wage earners to believe that by retaining the right to set minimum wage rates that it has their best interests at heart. It is just like it wants workers to believe that somehow governments can create jobs.

A study released this week by a Halifax based think tank concludes that large increases in regional subsidies to Atlantic Canada have had a perverse effect, retarding economic growth rather than spurring it.

After 30 years of failure, people from coast to coast are recognizing that the policies promoted by this Liberal government have increased the debt load on Canadians and on the federal treasury, a double whammy. So much for red book promises.

If the Liberal government is really sincere about keeping at least the red book promise or the throne speech pledge of cutting red tape and ending duplication, now is the time to show good faith and give the provinces the sole governance over minimum wage rates. If the spirit of co-operation really exists, section 178(3) can be deleted and a memorandum of understanding negotiated to ensure that provinces maintain reasonable minimum wage standards. This would protect Canada's international commitments and free trade agreements.

Today of all days, on the first anniversary of the Quebec referendum, the government should be aware of the need to initiate some form of decentralization of some federal powers. The fact that the Prime Minister ignored the unity issue last year almost resulted in the break up of the country. The government must now recognize that the status quo will no longer keep Canada together.

The Reform Party has a plan which we think would be acceptable to all Canadians. In recognition of the need for decentralization, we developed a bottom up agenda for change that does not require amending the Constitution. The Reform Party's fresh start platform commits us to rebalancing powers, moving governmental responsibility closer to the people and strengthening Canada's federal nature and institutions.

As long as the government insists on retaining the right to revert to cabinet decreed minimum wage rates, the Reform Party cannot support this bill.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on Bill C-35, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.

This amendment speaks to the type of government this is. It is a government that seeks justice, opportunity and recognizes that hard working Canadians need to be rewarded for the work they engage in. The legislation would automatically align the federal minimum wage rate with the general adult minimum wage rates of the provinces and territories.

I am sure hon. colleagues were quite surprised to learn that the federal minimum wage as of July 17, 1996 had not increased in 10 years. I am sure hon. members will agree that just about everything else increased during the past decade.

This legislation is most certainly overdue. It is time the federal minimum wage was brought into line with minimum amount workers under provincial jurisdictions receive for their labour.

The federal minimum wage was $4 an hour until July 17, 1996 when it was raised to provincial and territorial minimum wage rates effective at that time. I note that five provinces have increased their minimum wage rate since July 17.

The minimum wage affects our most vulnerable workers, those who are most in need of receiving a reasonable hourly income, those hard working Canadians who are contributing to the economic growth of our nation. I really believe they deserve better.

For the most part these workers are non-unionized. Passage of Bill C-35 will help protect Canada's unorganized workers. Since non-union workers make up about two thirds of the Canadian workforce that is a substantial number of people. Of course in practical terms aligning the federal minimum wage to the provin-

cial and territorial rates affects only a small portion of workers; all the more reason to ensure passage of Bill C-35.

These men and women deserve to be guaranteed the same compensation for their labour as is received by their provincial counterparts. Furthermore, this legislation establishes a level playing field for all Canadian employers and employees with regard to minimum wages.

Businesses will be protected nationwide from unfair competition, at least as far as payment of basic wage is concerned. There is no danger of us opening a Pandora's box of economic uncertainty. In fact, as hon. colleagues have pointed out previously, most employers under federal jurisdiction are now paying their lowest paid employees the equivalent of the provincial rate. Passage of Bill C-35 will ensure that this practice is applied across the board. It will benefit those workers who enjoy little or no bargaining power.

As soon as the act comes into effect, all workers under federal jurisdiction will be paid the respective provincial or territorial minimum wage.

Another positive aspect of this piece of legislation is that it gives further impetus to the government's desire to bring greater harmony to the federal and provincial laws governing the workplace standards. By aligning the federal, provincial and territorial minimum wage rates the rates will correspond more directly, more precisely with the realities of each region's economy.

I believe it is important for hon. members to note that the provinces and territories govern 98 per cent of Canadian workers who are paid minimum wage. Those under federal jurisdiction represent less than 10 per cent of the Canadian workforce. That is one reason why the Minister of Labour did not choose to follow tradition and simply increase the former federal minimum wage rate. Had the minister taken this approach, before long provincial and territorial rates would increase and once again the Government of Canada would find itself lagging behind some of the provinces.

Passage of Bill C-35 will resolve the quandary once and for all. Bill C-35 will ensure that every time a province or territory upgrades its adult minimum wage the government of Canada's minimum wage will follow suit.

I am sure hon. members can see that this approach will be much more administratively efficient. Let us consider for a second that rules will be simpler. Eliminating duplication in minimum wage rates will mean less paper work. Federal, provincial and territorial government activities regarding minimum wage will be harmonized. Both management and employees will know exactly what to expect when there is an increase in a provincial or territorial minimum wage rate. All businesses in the same region will be required to pay the same minimum wage for the same kind of work. Records pertaining to minimum wage for all workers will in fact be the same.

Since I pointed out a moment ago most employers under federal jurisdiction already pay wages according to the prevailing provincial and territorial minimums, then it is simply good business practice to have a minimum wage that reflects local market conditions.

To consider Bill C-35 from a socioeconomic perspective, the increase in the minimum wage that will result from this legislation is in fact fair and reasonable. By giving due regard to provincial and territorial economic conditions the respective increases simply reaffirm the right of workers to be paid the same minimum wage for the same kind of work.

I think hon. members will find it self-evident that an attractive minimum wage adds to incentives for individuals to continue to work or to seek employment and thus a move toward self-sufficiency.

Helping the private sector to create jobs is a priority of this government and while admittedly only a small step, harmonized minimum wage rates with our provincial partners is definitely a solid step in the right direction.

Furthermore, hon. members can be assured that the resulting increases to bring the federal rate in line with respective provincial and territorial rates will not result in a loss of jobs or encourage inflation. That is I think self-evident given the small number of federal minimum wage earners and the fact that virtually all federal jurisdiction employers pay provincial minimum wage rates.

At the same time, the Government of Canada is not relinquishing its fiduciary responsibility under the Canada Labour Code. Should a situation arise where it became necessary, the government retains the legislative power to regulate a federal minimum wage for the entire country or in fact for a specific region.

In closing on this subject matter, I would encourage all members of Parliament on both sides to support Bill C-35. This amendment to the Canada Labour Code I believe is complementary to the Minister of Labour's plans to modernize Part III of the Canada Labour Code. It is legislation I firmly believe is well overdue. It will demonstrate internationally that Canada is a leader in labour standards among industrialized nations.

It is this spirit of governing that I think is welcomed by the people of Canada. I think Canadians have realized that this government where it sees social and economic injustices tries to address them through creating a better climate for economic growth, expanding opportunities for Canadians. There is no question we made some commitments to the Canadian people three

years ago almost to the day when we sought to become the government.

Look at some of the issues that we have had to deal with. For example, Canadians asked for no personal income tax increase. The government delivered on that promise. They told us to be unlike the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney which missed every single deficit target it proposed in every single budget. The government has in large part achieved the deficit reduction targets. We are heading toward a balanced budget.

The government has reduced its spending which was part and parcel of its agenda for change. It has created an environment conducive to job creation. Over 650,000 jobs have been created.

Let me be very clear. I wish the unemployment rate would fall even further, particularly as it relates to the high unemployment that young people in our country face today. The government has made some steps to alleviate the problem. We have increased by 57 per cent, for example, the amount of money and investment we make with Canada student loans over five years. That is a $2.5 billion commitment by the federal government.

The government has doubled its commitment in summer jobs for students, fully understanding that summer jobs represent a very important part of employment prospects for young people. As they receive a summer job and participate in a summer job these young people are acquiring valuable skills and also earning money required for them to return to school.

Above and beyond that, some of the programs I am quite excited about in relation to young people are Youth Service Canada and the youth internship program.

The youth internship program is tied to growth industries through our national sectoral council initiative where we have identified 33 growth areas in our economy. These areas are creating approximately 50,000 jobs for our youth. That speaks to the type of job creation required to make sure sustained economic growth occurs in our country.

I do not mean to belabour the point but Canada is viewed as one of the top G-7 countries. We are looking toward perhaps the fastest growth of any of the G-7 countries. Why is that? We have been able to increase our exports. We have been able to provide world class infrastructure for our companies.

The Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade have taken it upon themselves to market Canada abroad. The contracts that were generated in the trade missions to China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Latin America have brought home $20 billion of new business. Every $1 billion creates approximately 11,000 jobs in Canada. Mr. Speaker, you would have to admit that it is really helping the Canadian economy.

The government has been able to keep its promises. It is reducing the deficit, which is quite important to put the fiscal house in order. We are expected to rank first, No. 1, in economic growth of the G-7 countries in 1997. Jobs have been created to the tune of over 650,000.

I am sure the members of the viewing audience from my riding of York North want to know how all of this manifests itself at the local level, which is usually how government policies are gauged on whether they are having an impact. I am happy to say that in my riding the unemployment rate has dropped to 7.3 per cent. That is well below the national average. Over the years we have been able to build the type of socioeconomic infrastructure that speaks to three major priorities: youth, trade and technology.

We have been able to equip the riding with a type of infrastructure that speaks to the creation of 21st century jobs which will be highly skilled, highly paid and will produce the high value added products we will need if we want to maintain our social programs and the type of quality of life to which the people in my area and indeed across the country have grown accustomed.

The infrastructure program has helped our local economy. In my riding over 1,200 jobs were created as a result of that program. The program works because it addresses local realities. Working with provincial counterparts and the municipal governments we were able to set the local priorities and identify what we should do to make sure we modernize the infrastructure of the area with the hope of creating a better quality of life and enhancing job creation.

I have already touched on the issue of youth. Many programs initiated at the national level have found their way back to the local level. Whether it is summer jobs for young people, the youth internship program or Youth Service Canada, these programs are at the local level.

We need to understand the issue of technology. The government and its partners have understood the importance of developing and enhancing a technological revolution in our country. For example, we are leading the rest of the world with SchoolNet. We know we are leading the way when all schools and libraries will be connected. We know we are leading the way in providing good service and a good infrastructure for future generations.

I have been closely involved with the social security review. We have done what I think was the proper thing to do. We have modernized our unemployment insurance program moving toward an employment insurance program that is much more active and less passive than it was in the past. We are providing tools for our

unemployed workers which they will need to re-enter the workforce.

When we look at the new employment insurance program we see things like wage subsidies; we see skills and loan grants. Greater opportunities are being created in an active way to ensure that the-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member's time has expired.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill, which raises the federal minimum wage rate, has been long awaited by the people concerned. The federal minimum wage rate is now $4 an hour, compared to $7 in British Columbia, $6.85 in Ontario, and even $5.25 in Newfoundland.

Needless to say, this minimum wage is extremely low, and it is high time that this so-called modern government adjusted it.

What is interesting is that, in adjusting the minimum wage, the federal government has chosen-thereby breaking with tradition-to align it with the minimum wage rate paid in the province where the employee under federal jurisdiction works.

This is extremely interesting because it shows how, with these different labour markets and labour laws, when the federal government does not do the same thing in other areas, workers in the same province end up with two different labour systems.

As a result, a Quebec worker under federal jurisdiction-depending on where she works-does not have the right to preventative withdrawal from work, even if she and her doctor feel that staying in the workplace might be dangerous for her and the foetus. The only thing she can do is ask for unpaid leave. Quebec law allows her to start by asking to be transferred elsewhere in the business, and if the employer has no job to offer that does not present a risk to her and the foetus, she can stay home and wait for the birth while receiving benefits amounting to 90 per cent of her gross salary.

My point is that the central government should align itself with the other labour systems and conditions set out in the Canada Labour Code. We will see what it does after the committee tables its amendments to the bill and what the minister does with them. The time when there could be two different systems in the same province is over.

I should stress that the federal government's decision to align the federal minimum wage for the workers affected with the minimum wage in the provinces deserves to be acknowledged. This is a historical moment.

Why? This is the labour relations professor in me, who sees values in tracing things back in time. It is in fact interesting to note that, in the early 1900s, the federal government took steps to regulate labour conditions. In 1907, the Lemieux act was passed to try to impose a bargaining system in enterprises that may be generally described as public-oriented or public sector enterprises.

The Lemieux act was challenged. Finally, the Privy Council in London-it had not been patriated yet at the time, in 1925, the act having been passed in 1907-ruled that the provinces should have jurisdiction over labour relations as well as the standards and acts dealing with the relationship between individual workers and businesses within the province.

Ever since, this area has come under provincial jurisdiction, based on the interpretation of the Constitution given by the Privy Council clearly stating that it should be so.

There was one other time in our history when the central government attempted to interfere in this area. It must be recognized that it was for a good cause, at the days when we were still knee deep in the depression and, in the U.S., President Roosevelt was just starting to pull his country out of the slump, if not the recession, with his new deal, establishing the right to organize, a minimum wage and labour standards for workers. I will repeat that, in order to pull his country out of the slump in 1993, the President of the United States of America proposed what we would call today regulations.

To pull Canada out of the slump, a severe slump, with job creation only starting to pick up-in fact, the pre-1929 level of employment was not be regained and clearly exceeded until the war-the Bennett government also came up, in 1935, with a series of measures including legislation on the 48-hour work week and other provisions of the sort.

Basically, as I said, they introduced regulations to ensure that workers get a larger share of wealth so that, in turn, they could spend and get the economy rolling again.

I point this out because, as we know, the current economic talk is to the contrary. So, when you look at history, it is somewhat ironic to see that the government is trying to overcome the current crisis by doing exactly the opposite of what helped us put an end to the Great Depression.

The fact that workers do not get the same treatment in a province, depending on whether they come under provincial or federal jurisdiction, has a negative impact.

I make this comment because, as you know, some challenge the very existence of minimum wage, or want it to be the lowest possible. It is interesting to note that, in a business, competitiveness must not be based on the cost of work.

If we accept that the price of hydro and the cost of basic resources should be the same for all businesses, it only makes sense that the work itself should also be paid the same price, and that competitiveness be based on the ability to organize, to choose good products, to develop them, to innovate, to identify markets and to benefit from them. Productivity should not be based on a form of discrimination affecting the price paid for work.

So, this legislation is a step in the right direction. However, there is an issue that remains unresolved, namely the implementation of federal and provincial minimum wage laws.

One has to realize that, even if there is a minimum wage act in effect, pressures can be exerted on workers so that they do not ask to be paid this minimum wage or, if one does not want to directly contravene the act, one can pay minimum wages to workers and then demand money back under the table.

Such practices have been reported many times. We know they exist. So, any pressure to help restore the balance in favour of workers is welcome. It is important to note that consumption plays a major role in the economy.

As you know, I worked very hard to make sure that all those who can work are able to find jobs and to ensure that job creation is a concern to all. However, when well-paying jobs are not available, people earning minimum wages, and also UI and welfare recipients, help the economy, since their money goes directly into it.

I will just take 30 seconds out to greet you, Mr. Speaker. Is this your first time in the chair, Mr. Speaker? I am talking to you. I believe this is your first time in the chair.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Yes, it is.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

That is why I am greeting you. You have thrown me off my stride slightly, but I will try to interest you, and I will take this opportunity to say that when members speak in a House with the composition of this one, it is always interesting to have the Speaker take an interest in our remarks, even if he does not agree with them. I am quite aware that it does not matter whether or not the Speaker agrees with what we are saying, but I feel that his interest is very supportive for members who rise to speak and to try to defend the interests of their constituents and of the public generally.

That being said, I will return to what I was saying about the federal minimum wage bill, which will bring the wage paid workers in areas under federal jurisdiction into line with that paid in areas under provincial jurisdiction. I was saying, then, that those who are not in agreement with a decent minimum wage should remember that all those without an income, wherever they may be, are largely responsible for driving the economy, particularly in slow periods. You do not invest in Honolulu on a minimum wage. Your investments are limited to paying your grocery bills and buying the necessities of life for your children.

I would also like to take this opportunity to draw attention to something that is extremely troubling. In one of the latest publications of the OECD, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, of which Canada is a member, one of 28 members, there is a table showing the percentage of low wage earners in all OECD countries. Believe it or not, Canada has the second highest, right after the United States. This is very troubling.

Obviously, when you realize that the minimum federal wage is $4, you might say it is understandable. However, I know that this category of minimum wage earners is so small in number that it could not have had an impact; nonetheless, the fact that Canada is the second country after the United States with regard to the prevalence of low wages is significant.

But worse yet, Canada is the country were the gap between incomes in the first quintile and the fifth quintile is the widest. This means that on a income scale of five, it is in Canada that the gap is the widest, wider that in the United States. This is what I noticed in that same table. I know that the OECD compiles statistics from data freely provided by member countries.

This is an extremely disturbing fact, which makes this bill even more necessary, even though it is only a tiny drop in the bucket.

This is not all. The parliamentary secretary stressed how important the reform he called "updating the employment insurance" was. I would like to mention two things. According to a report published yesterday by Statistics Canada, its second job survey-it conducts two surveys, one by phone to compile the monthly statistics and a more lengthy one using employers's payrolls-shows that in the past year the net job loss in Ontario was 50,000 while it was 34,000 in Quebec, this according to payroll data.

This is in blatant contradiction with the government's boastful pat-on-the-back attitude with regard to the economic situation. The truth is ordinary people do not believe the recession is over, no matter what statistics say. The truth is there has never been such a wide gap among Canadians in terms of income, as shown by the statistics published by the OECD.

The truth is averages often hide gaps which might be extreme, which brings us back to basics, namely, the situation of those in need. This in turn brings us back to the need for job creation.

I will not be able to talk long about the fact that the employment insurance premiums now required of SMEs which were previously exempted for employees working less than 15 hours are having a

serious impact on these businesses, as is the case in my riding and as my constituents told me this week.

In conclusion, I will say that this bill is long overdue, but that it is only a drop in the bucket to improve the situation of ordinary people and promote job creation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

At the request of the chief government whip, the vote is deferred until 5.30 p.m. this day.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-34, an act to establish programs for the marketing of agricultural products, to repeal the Agricultural Products Board Act, the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act, the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Agricultural Marketing Programs Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-34.

Motion No. 1 cannot be submitted to the House as it did not receive the Governor General's recommendation. Standing Order 76(3) requires that notice be given of the said recommendation no later than the sitting day before the day on which the report stage is to commence.

Motions Nos. 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 2 applies to Motion No. 3.

I will now submit to the House Motions Nos. 2 and 3.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will be lenient and give me 11 minutes because I would like to take a minute to congratulate you on your appointment to the chair. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you were listening to my speech last night and while I had some concerns about the way that you were appointed to the chair and the fact that it broke some Liberal promises, we certainly do respect your ability and we wish you well in that position. I hope you get your outfit in time for Hallowe'en. I am sure you will look very officious in the chair in your outfit.

I do have to admit that you were one of the best hecklers, one of the most aggressive hecklers on the other side and it will certainly be a change for you to be sitting in the chair. We know that you will restrain yourself and we will miss that boisterous echo we used to hear from the other side. Sincerely, congratulations and we wish you well.

I rise today to discuss Bill C-34, important agricultural legislation that proposes the amalgamation within the various sectors of agriculture marketing. As my colleagues are aware, this bill will combine four separate agricultural acts and one program into a single act.

Reform generally supports this motion in principle. However there needs to be some amendments in order for the act to best assist farmers, financial institutions and other organizations that are affected by the act.

We brought some amendments to the committee. By the way, the bill followed the new route that you, Mr. Speaker, so heartily endorsed. The bill went to committee prior to second reading in the hope that there would be more opportunity for amendments in committee.

Unfortunately, the amendments were not accepted by the government side. We were a bit surprised. We thought perhaps under the new formula at least some amendments would be accepted but they were discarded without any due consideration. We really do feel badly about that because some of them were excellent amendments. I believe they all were, but certainly some of them were.

We have put three amendments forward today. Mr. Speaker, you correctly ruled that the first amendment cannot be considered because it did not receive a royal recommendation. That is unfortunate because the minister and government had the opportunity to grant it a royal recommendation and we could have at least debated this amendment in the House. I do not know why the Liberal government is afraid to debate new ideas in this House, why it would use the technicality of rejecting a royal recommendation to get itself off the hook.

Our first amendment would have permitted in cases of emergency where an emergency advance was issued on an agricultural commodity, that $25,000 would be included in part of the $50,000 interest free portion of the cash advance. The rationale and the thinking of the Liberals on this issue is beyond logic. Here we have a bill which suggests that a $50,000 interest free cash advance be provided to producers on the first $50,000 that they accept in advance and that interest be paid on subsequent amounts advanced, up to a maximum of $250,000.

If there is an emergency, if there is trouble in the industry, if there are dire situations, when the farmer is down and out, does the Liberal government extend any consideration? No, it gives them a knock out punch. The government says if there is an emergency situation, $25,000 will be advanced but it will not be interest free.

If the government allowed the $25,000 to be advanced and said: "You pay interest but the next $50,000 will put you on par with other producers who qualify for $50,000 interest free", that would be fine, but the Liberals did not see it that way. They said: "If there is an emergency, we will just knock the farmers a little harder. We will try to keep them down and we will charge them more interest than we will charge farmers who are not facing an emergency". This is blatantly unfair.

I do not understand why the Liberals were afraid to debate this issue in the House, why the minister would not permit a royal recommendation to my first amendment that was tabled in the Notice Paper. He chose not to and he will have to answer and be accountable to producers for his actions.

I want to get to the second and third amendments which were grouped together. In a nutshell, these two amendments eliminate the government purchases program. This program has not been used for years. The last time it was used was in 1985. It has only been used once or twice in the last 20 or 30 years. It is a relic. It is a bit like the Conservative Party; it had its day, but it is gone.

We asked the officials why the government purchases program is in the new legislation, the new reorganization of cash advances. They said they did not know why it was there but that maybe sometime they would have to use it. It is the same as saying that maybe sometime we will have to impose the speed limits on horses and buggies that are in the bylaws. We may just have to use that sometime.

Knowing the way government works, I am sure they need a few bureaucrats in charge of the government purchases program even if it is not being used. Therefore they will expend some money just to monitor the situation. Of course that will be money that cannot be spent in more useful areas.

The government purchases program provides the minister with wide ranging authority to buy, sell or import agricultural products, to stabilize domestic market conditions and to conclude sales to other governments or government agencies.

I have heard members from the other side worry about vertical integration in the agriculture sector. If members want to talk about vertical integration, this is it. The government can be in total control: buy, sell, import products. This is not a good situation. The federal government has no business being in a government purchases program for agricultural products. It is not using the program. It is history. It is ancient. It should not have been included in the bill. All it will do is provide work for a few people in the department when they could be better expending their energies in another area.

Therefore we brought forward very reasonable amendments which would delete this part of the bill. Those two clauses are the only clauses which deal with the government purchases program and we believe they should be deleted.

We talked about the wide ranging power that it gives to the minister. It also affords zero accountability. Although there are no resources budgeted to this program, the government has been unable to adequately justify continuing it by entrenching it in the new legislation.

There is some unusual terminology in it which quite frankly could not be defined. They could not say what unusual market conditions were.

Given the technology at the end of the 20th century as we approach the 21st century, any attempt to justify the continuation of this program is shallow to say the least.

Ten minutes is not a lot of time in which to discuss the bill. However, we did talk about other areas of the bill as well as the government purchases program and the fact that the emergency

advance should be interest free. We will have an opportunity to debate those issues further at third reading.

We were concerned about the fact that the minister has the power to increase the contingent liability. We made the argument in committee that if the contingent liability needs to be increased, that means the industry is doing well. It does not mean there is a crisis or an emergency; it means that producers' income is increasing. We felt that there should be provisions in the bill which would make the minister more accountable to the industry and to the House with respect to the contingent liability.

We were concerned about the fact that there was some inequity in the bill. Not all producers and organizations were treated equally. It seemed the problem was the Canadian Wheat Board. It has a higher default level than other producer organizations and administrators who administer the cash advances. Because it could not get its act together quickly enough, it was provided with special provisions to account for its difficulties. That of course is to the detriment of other sectors within the industry. When we favour one group we always hurt someone else.

The penalty for default on Canadian Wheat Board advances was, I believe, based at zero per cent while others were higher. The Canadian Wheat Board was given a two-year period to get its act together. I would have thought that the Canadian Wheat Board, being the wonderful institution that it is, would have had its act together more quickly and would have been administering the cash advances on a more prudent basis.

I would ask the House to consider the two amendments to eliminate the government purchases program. We believe it is the prudent thing to do. This is 1996. Why are we implementing something that should not be used and probably will not be used? However, it is in this piece of legislation and it requires the attention of the department. It requires consideration from time to time simply because it is in the legislation.

I ask the House to consider supporting the two amendments under consideration at the present time.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair. I have watched over the past eight years and have seen how well you follow parliamentary procedure and how good you are in that area. I know that you will be a bonus to the House and that you will administer your job in an extremely good manner. Congratulations.

The motion before us is to delete clause 31 of the agricultural marketing programs bill. The deletion of clause 31 in effect deletes part III which deals with the government purchases program. This part provides the authority that is currently contained in the Agricultural Products Board Act. The only amendment being made to that act is the removal of the board to administer the act.

The government purchases program gives the government the flexibility to deal with special purchases, but only with governor in council approval. Authority of this nature is not available in other pieces of legislation. The authority would cover the following:

To sell Canadian grown agricultural products to other governments or government agencies. This authority is very important when making trade deals with countries that are not comfortable in dealing with private industry within another country. Such marketing opportunities will be lost without this flexibility. The deletion of this authority will eliminate sales made to central planned economies and other countries where for various reasons the intergovernmental sales are required. For example, in 1990 and 1991, $16.5 million of pork was sold to the USSR under this act.

To remove the surplus product from a depressed market generally caused by unusually large production, to be sold back into the market at a later date when market stability has returned. For example in 1993 due to unusual weather conditions a large surplus of juice apples were processed into apple concentrate and sold into a different market through this act, allowing the apple juice market to stabilize.

To provide emergency food aid to countries not named under the Canadian International Development Act. The act was used for this purpose as recently as 1990-91 and again in 1991-92.

Under the act the government cannot sell the product for a lower price than the purchase price plus costs, without the approval of governor in council. Since there is no such budget attached to this part of the act, ministers through GIC approval would have to approve any funds for this part.

The major changes and liberalizations in international and domestic trade still leave a need for programs of this nature to facilitate international transactions and to help stabilize domestic markets where unusual conditions exist. Therefore it is the recommendation of myself and the government to defeat this motion.

With regard to the motion to delete clause 36, this clause describes the penalties that result from failure to provide information under the government purchases program. For the proper administration of this program, it is essential that the government be provided with sufficient accurate information to be able to determine the need to use this program in any particular circumstance. This clause is essential to ensure the provision of this information.

Clause 36 is linked to clause 31. The arguments for keeping clause 31 apply equally to the retention of this clause. It is therefore the recommendation of the government to defeat the motion.

I want to correct a point that was made by my hon. colleague across the way when he introduced his motion. It was on the emergency funding of $25,000. That emergency funding would be rolled into the $50,000 under the present act and would well support any emergency dollars, plus give the benefit that is equal under the act consistent to all farmers in the country. I think a very great misinterpretation has been given to that aspect of the act. Quite frankly, I am not clear why the member did that.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (minimum wage), be read the third time and passed.

Canada Labour Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-35, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (minimum wage).

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)