Debates of Nov. 28th, 1997

Canada Co-Operatives Act

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, I regret having to interrupt my colleague. There is one more grouping. I wonder if we could seek unanimous consent that the second motion be deemed read and seconded, while the ministers who were just mentioned are still present in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to speak of the two additional amendments in the House today, which were made following the adjournment of the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Industry on Bill C-5.

The need for two more technical amendments became apparent just after the committee adjourned its hearings. We would like to put forward these amendments now.

The first relates to section 85 of the bill. The amendment is required to correct the conflict regarding how long directors may be appointed to fill an existing vacancy on a board.

Section 85(1)(b) states that an appointed director may fill a vacancy until the next annual meeting. However, section 85(9) states that the director may serve for the unexpired term of their predecessor.

The amendment resolves the conflict by removing the time period set out in section 85(1)(b). This ensures that the bill is consistent with similar provisions of other federal corporate law statutes.

Permit me to remind the House of the way Bill C-5 was drafted. The bill is the result of an initiative by users, that is, the co-operative sector. It comes from people who know best what it takes to maintain the vitality and dynamism of the co-operative movement.

The co-operatives sector in Canada sought a consensus among its members on their needs in order to survive and prosper in a competitive market. This bill is the outcome of hard work and devotion by the members of the co-operative movement in an effort to modernize legislation.

The bill was well received by all parties at second reading. In addition, it received the general approval of the committee, not only of the witnesses appearing before it but of the members sitting on it.

The bill has three main objectives. The first consists in revitalizing the rules for managing co-operatives. Accordingly, the bill gives co-operatives access to tools other businesses already have. Furthermore, it simplifies the process of incorporation and reduces government intervention to a minimum.

The second objective is to give co-operatives access to new forms of financing. For example, it authorizes them to issue participating stock on the stock exchanges enabling them to borrow on the financial market if they wish to do so.

The third objective is to reinforce the distinct character of co-operatives, by ensuring that only those organizations operating according to co-operative principles may be constituted as co-operatives. The bill also reinforces the control exercised by members and empowers them to decide on the structure of the co-operative.

The new legislation will enable Canadian co-operatives to operate effectively. It will help to stimulate investment, economic growth and job creation in numerous communities throughout Canada.

The co-operatives have been anxiously awaiting this reform. They have done their part. They did all of the ground work themselves. They have clearly pointed out what they wanted in this bill, and worked hammer and tongs to attain that goal.

The work done by the co-operatives has considerably facilitated the process of studying the bill. The effects of this can be seen in the support it has received on second reading and in committee.

The industry committee heard from several witnesses. It heard from two national organizations representing co-operatives, the Canadian Co-operative Association and the Conseil canadien de la coopération.

Further, it heard from specific members of the co-operative sector, the Alberta Wheat Pool and the Manitoba Pool Elevators. Finally, it heard about the cross-country consultations on this initiative with grassroots members of the co-operative sector.

One substantive issue was raised at committee. It concerned the ability of a co-operative to pay out a member who dissents on a proposal for a fundamental change or a change to the articles. Some members of the co-operative sector raised concerns that the right of members to dissent and be paid out could potentially jeopardize the capital base of a co-operative. These concerns were expressed in committee by the Alberta Wheat Pool and the Manitoba Pool Elevators.

In the true spirit of co-operation, a consensus was arrived at within the co-operative sector itself to deal with this issue. An amendment was proposed to allow a co-op to set out in its articles a time period for payout to a dissenting member as long as the time period does not exceed 10 years.

The amendment also ensures that the rights of members are protected by stipulating that any payout made will accumulate interest at rates set out in the regulations. This amendment was passed in committee.

Five other amendments were passed in committee. These were all technical in nature and did not raise any debate.

I wish to commend the hard work done by all committee members from all parties to bring Bill C-5 to fruition.

I will be pleased to address the second amendment in a few minutes.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during second reading, the Bloc Quebecois expressed its agreement in principle with this bill.

It pointed out, in particular, certain concerns raised by the bill. It is true that this bill started with a request from the co-operatives, but it must be kept in mind that Canadian and Quebec co-operatives, which, like the other co-operatives in the world, have to adjust to economic changes, have been involved in serious debate among themselves. They are torn between wanting to be flexible enough for the new economy, and not straying too far away from co-operative principles.

I know, and this is a finding I want to report, arising out of the work of the committee, that the Conseil québécois des coopératives, which encompasses all Quebec co-operatives, agreed with the bill in the end, but only after negotiating and winning a number of points it proposed. At report stage, the Conseil québécois pointed out that one of the points on which it had not won out related to the powers of the general assembly of members.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the first amendment, which suddenly popped up after this lengthy process, which took two years, and after the end of the committee's work at report stage, without our having heard a word about it beforehand, is a new one. It must be pointed out as well that this amendment diminishes the power of the general assembly of members and confirms the concerns I have expressed.

At the report stage, in the light of the discussions going on in the union movement, I said I still had some concerns about this bill. The representative of the Conseil québécois des coopératives did not say I was wrong to have concerns. He said he shared them, but that out of solidarity he would agree with his Canadian colleagues, pointing out that very few co-operatives in Quebec are federally chartered. To my knowledge, there are only six of 2,900, if we count all the co-operatives and 1,650 if we count the non- financial ones.

The amendment is not insignificant. It eliminates the use of general meetings to replace members who themselves were replaced by the board of directors.

I will try to make this a bit clearer. When a board member appointed by the general meeting has to resign or be removed, one of two things can happen: either they wait until the next general meeting or they are replaced. The bill provided that a replacement be found just until the next annual meeting. The first amendment eliminates the “until the next annual meeting”.

Quebec law, and I checked, very specifically provides that, in such an instance, the vacancy is filled until the next annual meeting, or—to put it another way—for the remainder of the mandate. So I feel quite justified in saying that it is deplorable that, after this process, which must be commended, we end up reducing members' powers.

I add that, for Quebec members, the powers of the members at the general meeting had been reduced compared to what is provided in Quebec legislation, because in this attempt at modernization, non-members may hold capital. Under Quebec law, these non-members may become board members, because they provide capital, but their appointment must be approved by the annual general meeting. This is what the Conseil wanted in the federal legislation, but it was denied.

So, not only will there be members on the board of directors who have not received the approval of the annual general meeting, but, if a member is replaced, the bill does not say it is only until the next annual general meeting.

For this reason, I am strongly opposed to this amendment and once again I do not understand why a government that has boasted about giving co-operatives what they wanted shows up with this amendment at the last minute. It confirms the fears I had, because co-operatives, of course, have to come up with the means to operate as best they can.

This is an important sector of our economy. It is a sector that is exceptional for the collective ownership by the members, and for the corporate characteristic of putting longevity ahead of short term profits, through transferability, purchase, sale, and so forth. It is therefore an important sector of the economy that needs to evolve, but it cannot do so by abandoning its fundamental principles. One of these principles is the power of the annual general meeting.

We therefore oppose this first amendment.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking to the bill in general and certainly to the amendment.

I have been encouraged by the whole process surrounding this bill, particularly by the way it was handled by the committee and the way the government listened to the concerns of the co-op members. I think the co-op sets a good example for all of us. The whole co-op structure is based on accountability to the members. That is part of the reason why the whole process works so well.

The amendments proposed to the bill and the total bill really were birthed out of concerns of the co-op management and members. The co-operatives recognized there was a need for change. They are in an increasingly competitive environment. They realized if they did not make some changes their viability was at risk for the long term.

They realized they were competing against larger entities with smaller management hierarchies and less bureaucracy. They realized they had to be more customer focused and more efficient. They realized that some investment dollars were needed in order to sustain them for the long term. I thought it was interesting that this realization caused them to actually bring forward the legislation in this bill, even to the point in our committee of fine tuning some of the amendments that we have here, to make sure there was not one thing that was not addressed.

These amendments here today were not something that the government so much brought forward as the members of the co-operatives themselves did. The management of the co-operatives brought them on themselves. This shows the accountability back to the members and that the government is listening to the needs of this industry and this group worked in this case. It was quite encouraging to me.

What I would like to see as a take-out of this whole endeavour is the lessons learned on the positive side. I encourage the government also to deal with some of the realities that Canadians are faced with and look at the model in this bill: a responsiveness to membership, a responsiveness to the people that put the directors of the co-operatives in place and the people that put us here.

I have concerns as I look at this bill and I compare it to what I see us in the House and the government doing. We talk about the fact that there is no deficit outstanding, we are hoping, yet we are sitting on a $600 billion debt and we see interest rates threatening to creep up on us. We are sitting on an interest rate time bomb. We pay $45 billion a year in interest. I was doing a calculation on this and that is enough money to put four million young people through a four year degree program at university. That is a lot of money and we pay that in interest every year.

These are all realities Canadians have to face. When I look at the co-operative situation and I look at what is happening in our government, I do not see the same kind of responsiveness here in the House of Commons. When I look at the throne speech with 29 new spending initiatives and we have that reality as far as the debt and the interest goes, it just does not line up for me and I do not think it lines up for a lot of Canadians.

Canadians are looking for us to deal with the realities that are needed in Canada today. Less government, not more. The co-operatives have demonstrated this in the management of their own operations. We do not seem to be able to do it in this House. We need to consider allowing Canadians to be heard the same way that members of the co-operatives were, to allow this government to encourage an environment where Canadians can plan for their future like the co-operatives have planned for theirs.

The problem is that we do not seem to be listening here and a lot of Canadians are pretty frustrated about that. What we get instead is what I have heard on and off in the debate in this House in the last couple of days and actually over the last several weeks.

There is a plan for the CPP that is going to bail it out they say, but it has been there for 30 years and 30 years of government management has left a $560 billion unfunded liability. The money that goes in at one end pays for those who receive it at the other. There really is no equity there to draw from, even though we have been paying into it for 30 years. There was a study done in Maclean's not long ago that 66% of Canadians do not believe it will be there for them when it comes time for them to collect. This is pretty tragic.

Instead of listening to some of the proposals we put forward and some of the other strategies that are out there in the world that have bailed out government funded pension plans and that are working, the government's answer is to increase the premiums by 73%. It will keep grinding the old engine hoping it is going to work one day. The fact is that it has not for 30 years and it is very unlikely it will go forward. Ten percent of every Canadian's paycheque is going to be going into a plan that has not worked.

What is equally tragic about this whole thing is that we are not listening. The government is not listening to the people, especially when we consider that youth unemployment is sitting at 16.5% to 17%. Here is our answer. We are going to hike up payroll taxes. We are going to hike up CPP. It is a mistake on the government's part. It will hurt the youth of this nation more than we can fully comprehend. They are the people who are keen to get out and apply their skills and energy. If that is cut off it will have negative reverberations in our country for years to come. The hope of our youth is being crushed with high payroll taxes.

In hoping to make us feel better about it, the government introduced a CPP investment board to manage the funds. Many of us have seen the results of government appointed boards. It is more of a concern than a consolation.

What Canadians really want is something like the co-operatives are doing. They want the ability to manage their own affairs. They want to manage their own money. We should remember that it is, in fact, their money.

They could do it successfully. Many people have their own investment plans, their own pension plans, which are available in other countries. Those plans have worked three to four times better than what we are seeing in government-run plans.

This would give Canadians a chance to plan for their future, just like the co-operatives are attempting to do. They are planning for their future in a very competitive marketplace.

There is another thing the co-operatives did with this very interesting bill and these amendments. They looked for a way to protect themselves and to survive for the long term. That seems to be very wise in this day and age. Canadians want to have the same opportunity to protect themselves and to establish security for their families in the long term.

It is incumbent upon government, particularly the Government of Canada, to do all it can to move that along. However, the government is holding it up. It continually says that is what it wants to do, but we are over-governed, we have a debt and interest problem, we have the highest tax to GDP ratio of all the G-7 countries. Twenty-nine new spending initiatives were announced, even in the face of that. CPP has been increased 10%. We have another government appointed board.

Those are not the answers that Canadians are looking for. We do not need more bricks on the load, we need relief, especially in the face of youth unemployment at 16.5% and using the EI surplus to pay down the debt and balance the budget. These are not the answers.

There is some hope. The hope is that the government was able to listen to the co-operatives and is responding to the needs of the co-operatives. That tells me that there is a ray of hope here. When government is ready to listen and frees itself from political patronage and influence and concerns itself with where Canadians are at, there is hope. The co-operatives are allowed to plan for their future.

We support this bill, not only for what it does for the co-operatives but for what it represents. It represents the kind of approach to government that is responsive to the voters and will bring about resolutions and improvements to serve the needs of Canadians.

Let us take this simple bill and use it as an example—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Churchill River.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I stand on behalf of my party to support Bill C-5, as amended.

The amendments up to now, until the recent amendment which was moved quickly, were consistent with the co-operative way of doing business. The co-operative movement during consultations was challenged to support the bill as it was drafted, as well as the amendments. It went two rounds in the co-operative sector before it went one round in the federal sector. That shows great respect for the co-operative movement. These amendments seem to be all but technical issues. The co-operative sector actively discussed the amendments as did officials from Industry Canada, the co-op secretariat of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and there was a representation from the co-op of national organizations.

With respect to the position that the co-op sector has had in its gatherings as representatives, this bill seems to be a great step for our country. I would like to talk to the whole co-operative movement about how it will deal in light of the increasingly globalized world.

There are many federated co-op activities in Canada in areas related to fuel and food and many other items that meet the basic economic needs of people in this country. There is one key phrase among these items, “Truly Canadian”. That is probably the most powerful message of the co-operative movement. That is a unity message for us. Even our fellow representatives from Quebec showed support for a co-operative movement in their provinces. That co-op supports the idea that people should combine their efforts, their resources and their visions in an effort to create and support our economy. An entrepreneur from downtown New York would never imagine helping someone in small town Canada.

We have seen the Arctic co-ops shine. They are groups of partisans and craftsmen who have gathered their crafts and their marketing skills and have shown the world that as Inuit artists they could not do it singlehandedly. An individual could not create the energy or the economy or the resources, but many individuals could create collectively. As a collective the Inuit artists can be seen as a spotlight of this nation throughout the world.

I draw the House's attention to some of the experiences the co-ops have created in this country. In my neck of the woods, the Boreal Forest, the fur industry was a major activity. It was handled through Hudson's Bay and the Rupert's Land agreements of the British North America Act. All of a sudden the fur trade began to wither away. Nobody represented the trappers. All of a sudden their whole economy was falling apart.

The fur marketing board started up in northern Saskatchewan and the province of Saskatchewan through the CCF movement saw the light that could empower the people to market their own product.

Privilege

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in regard to a leaked report of the Standing Committee on Finance. Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 877 states:

No act done at any committee should be divulged before it has been reported to the House. Upon this principle the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, on April 21, 1937, resolved “That the evidence taken by any select committee of this House and the documents presented to such committee and which have not been reported to the House, ought not to be published by any member of such committee or by any other person”. The publication of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of reports of committees before they are available to Members will, however, constitute a breach of privilege.

Today in an article written by Rob Carrick of the Globe and Mail , a portion of the contents of the finance committee's pre-budget report was revealed. The first two paragraphs state:

The foreign content on RRSPs and registered pension funds should rise to 30 per cent from the current 20 per cent, the House of Commons finance committee says. The limit should be raised by two percentage points annually for five years, the committee says in a pre-budget report to Finance Minister Paul Martin that will be released Monday.

This morning at the finance committee members of the government admitted they had talked to the press concerning some issues in the matter of the work of the committee in preparing this report.

Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada on page 188 states:

A prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on its face as outlined by the member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to send it to a committee to investigate whether the privileges of the House have been breached or a contempt has occurred and report to the House.

The evidence regarding this alleged leak of the pre-budget finance report is more than sufficiently strong. The article in the Globe and Mail would have us believe that the journalists either had access to the report or was told in detail of the report.

We are getting a little tired of the lack of respect this government gives this House and, in particular, those matters concerning finance and the Department of Finance.

Need I remind this House that only recently there was a complaint in this House concerning the government with respect to the setting up of the CPP board before the bill to authorize the board was passed by Parliament. The Speaker commented on this on November 6, 1997 on page 1006 of Hansard . He said:

This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices. That it is the Department of Finance that is complained of once again has not gone unnoticed.

Once again, it is the same group of people making a mockery of our parliamentary conventions. They view Parliament as a nuisance. They have little respect for Parliament and it is time we take them to task.

Mr. Speaker, if you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is on the same point of order raised by the hon. member.

As a member of the finance committee and having been at the meeting today and present at the consultations, I would like to advise members of certain facts which maybe are not clear from the intervention of the member who just spoke.

First, we are not talking about legislation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In the opinion of the Chair, we are now getting into debate. I listened carefully to the intervention by the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. The Chair will take the point of privilege raised by the member under advisement and the Speaker will rule as to whether or not this is a point of privilege and the Speaker will rule as to what further steps the House will make. However, we will not get into debate on the merits at this time.

I assure the House that the Chair does appreciate the importance of the member's potential point of privilege. The Speaker will rule on the potential point of privilege.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, an act respecting co-operatives, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Canada Co-Operatives Act

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard stories from my parents and grandparents about the fur trade and the creation of a co-operative movement to try to market their furs. Unfortunately, we lived in the backwoods of the Churchill River, far removed from the garment makers in Montreal. In those days it was way beyond anyone's means to transport or communicate in order to co-operatively market and envision ourselves as a world leader in garment development in fur.

The co-operatives have taken on challenges. They have made mistakes by trying to develop economies through a collective effort in the communities. We cannot blame them for that because the effort was worth it. Individual markets and the globalization of multinationals who take out of our markets and economies is probably our nation's biggest fear.

Look at the success of the agricultural co-ops, the pools in marketing their grains and agricultural products worldwide. It is a major success. We have a wealth of resources in this country, resources in our people and our ideas. We have our timber, mining, water and other natural resources and non-renewable resources, all living resources.

I would like members to pay attention when they go to the parliamentary restaurant and turn to the right as they enter. They will see a picture highlighting the capital of this nation and its pyramid load is on the land, the resources, the timber, mining and fish. That image should be drawn up in a co-operative measure as how to go forward into the next millennium.

Look at the crown corporations. We have been selling off our railroads to American interests. All of a sudden Omnitrax owns major tracks of railroads in western Canada. Why did we not give the first option to Canadians? Maybe a Canadian co-operative could have taken up the transportation sector. Why not challenge ourselves in a co-operative perspective and give the first option to truly Canadian people as opposed to outside offshore interests?

I am very proud to speak on behalf of all the New Democrats and support this growing process of the co-operative movement in our nation. I encourage all Canadians to support their co-operatives in their regions. We must keep the process of negotiating these bills and amendments by taking it to the co-operative leaders and representatives and let them design and structure the necessary bills and legislation to come before the House.

The amendment which came in late, unfortunately may have missed the opportunity. However, I think it is truly a technical oversight on the part of legislators.

In closing, there are issues on the multilateral agreement on investment that will impinge on our national ability to improve the economy and the strength of our Canadian companies because outside interests can actually test the favouritism of our Canadian corporations and co-operatives.

The parties have united in supporting the co-operatives bill. We are looking to the government and the collection of all representatives of Canada to see the co-operatives flourish in this nation.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5, an act representing co-operatives.

Canada's history respecting co-operatives dates back to the mid-1800s with the formation of the Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Company. This was a result of the recognition by farmers that they too could have the same security in producing and marketing their products as seen by successful large businesses. The farmers decided to band together to gain better control over the marketing of their products and purchases. This was the birth of co-operatives in Canada.

The PC Party is pleased to support this legislation. Let me highlight some of the main characteristics of Bill C-5.

Bill C-5 redefines and widens the definition of co-operative basis. The principles of co-operative basis date back to 1844 and were set out by the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers in England. These principles formed the basis of most Canadian provincial legislation for over 50 years before they were adopted by the federal government in the Co-operative Associations Act.

The new definition under Bill C-5 is in keeping with the 1995 statement on co-operative identity issued by the International Co-operatives Alliance and sets the tone for all proposed changes to the act. The new definition includes the principle of open membership. There is also some flexibility added to the one member, one vote principle with regard to delegate voting.

Furthermore the principle of member funded investment is expanded under Bill C-5 in order to provide for co-ops issuing investment shares. The principle of using surplus funds to extend the operation of co-operative enterprises is also added. Finally, the principle of education is included.

Bill C-5 makes changes to the rules governing incorporation. It permits co-operatives to incorporate provided they operate on a co-operative basis.

The act currently requires a memorandum of association for the granting of incorporation status. This memorandum is submitted to the minister. He then decides, provided the application meets all technical requirements and conditions, to either grant or deny the right of incorporation. This paternalistic approach works against the co-operative philosophy of group decision making.

With Bill C-5 they will be acting under the same principles of the Business Corporations Act of incorporation as a right and not at the discretion of the crown. The proposed system is simpler and would streamline the administrative practices. This would also reduce the costs currently associated with incorporation for all parties.

Bill C-5 introduces the concept of natural person when describing co-operatives. As a result, they are awarded the same rights and privileges of a natural person. This is instead of detailing the various rights, powers and privileges individually. It is also in keeping with the same rights now awarded to business corporations and mirrors the powers some provinces already offer co-operatives.

Record keeping under Bill C-5 is simplified and streamlined. This again is in keeping with similar rules found in the Business Corporations Act.

Bill C-5 simplifies the rules governing amalgamations with other co-operatives or corporations. For instance, Bill C-5 will allow provincial co-operatives to merge with federal co-operatives provided that the end result is a federal co-op.

Furthermore, co-operatives will have similar rights to those of business corporations under the Canada Business Corporations Act. When applying for an arrangement, the courts will have the power to order an arrangement or reorganization and not the crown. This is a change from the current situation where members apply directly to the minister.

Bill C-5 also includes provisions specifically for worker and housing co-operatives. Currently they are governed under general rules in the existing act. The industry has identified several gaps in the current legislation which does not address the needs of these two types of co-operatives. Bill C-5 attempts to resolve this problem.

In conclusion, I am pleased to support Bill C-5. I believe that it will benefit co-operatives and in turn, millions of Canadians.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, because I sit on the industry committee, which considered this bill, and particularly because I am the member for Lévis, I am pleased to take part in this debate.

“Why Lévis?” you may ask. As all Quebeckers know, Lévis is the cradle of the Mouvement Desjardins. The first Caisse populaire Desjardins was founded on December 6, in 1900 I think. The centenary is coming up. Over four million Quebeckers belong to the Mouvement Desjardins.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

And Ontarians.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

And Ontarians. The member for Carleton—Gloucester, who is involved in this movement, also recognizes the importance of co-operatives for the survival of the French language. It played a large role in the survival, and I do mean survival, of the French language throughout Canada.

Lévis is the site of the Conseil de coopération du Québec. It is also the site of the headquarters of the Federation des coopératives en alimentation du Québec. There are several other federations, service co-operatives, including the federation interested in social economy, with headquarters in Lévis.

All this to say that, with the presence of the Mouvement Desjardins and the 2,000 employees working at the headquarters of the various Mouvement Desjardins institutions, Lévis can lay claim to being the co-operative capital of Quebec.

As the member for this riding, I therefore have no choice but to speak to this bill. One aspect that struck me in committee, because we are at report stage, was that, as the member for Carleton—Gloucester mentioned, there is what I would describe as a remarkable climate of co-operation among committee members, thanks to those influenced by representatives of the co-operative movement.

There are two large groups of co-operatives in Canada. There is the Conseil canadien de la coopération, which covers the francophone community and which has representatives in all the provinces of Canada except Newfoundland. There is also an equivalent organization for the anglophone community across Canada.

What we noted, and I also want the House to know this, is that the representatives of these two councils appeared together, side by side, before the committee. They came to testify and to submit their briefs while pursuing the same objectives. They showed solidarity, and I concluded that it would be possible, with people who have an open mind, to work co-operatively.

My colleague for Carleton—Gloucester might not like what I am saying, but this is proof of the value of the idea that the Bloc Quebecois and the sovereignists of Quebec are proposing to all of Canada, that is an open hand. It would be possible to have a partnership that would be useful for everyone if each of the parties made the effort and if they were confident in the efficacy of such a process.

I would like to point out that when people co-operate, francophones and anglophones, they discuss on an equal footing. We have always insisted on that.

So I wanted to take this opportunity to point out this example of co-operation that these people are providing us. I consider it unfortunate, at this stage, that there were two amendments introduced this morning, especially Motion No. 1, which limits the role of board members in relation to what can be decided at a meeting, as the member for Mercier clearly explained.

Except for that, the Bloc Quebecois reiterates that it supports the bill. We supported all the amendments that were proposed and the points of view provided by the witnesses who appeared before us. So we will continue to show co-operation by voting in favour of the bill at third reading.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Carried.

(Motion No. 1 agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. government House leader, on a point of order.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I had understood during negotiations with the House leaders that there would be an agreement to terminate the report stage of this bill today so that we could do the third reading next time.

If that is the case, as I believe it is, I wonder if the House would be prepared to ask for a division on the other amendment. I understood there were two of them.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the suggestion of the government House leader. Is it the pleasure of the House to proceed as described by the government House leader?