Debates of April 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my colleague for a while and I am somewhat surprised that, five years after the beginning of the consultation, he is not aware that the justice minister himself had given his support to microbreweries in favour of an amendment along the lines of what the Bloc Quebecois is suggesting. Microbrewers thought this would be in the bill, but today as we amend the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act, this situation will not be rectified.

How do you expect citizens to understand what is going on except by saying “the Liberal government has decided to postpone a decision on beer as a result of pressures from big breweries to make sure that microbreweries would eventually disappear and their market share would go back to the big breweries that are contributing to the Liberal Party of Canada?”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-47, an act to amend the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act, but I will be a lot less pleased with the result if this bill is ever passed.

It is appropriate to remind those who are listening to us that this bill is aimed at amending the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act, everything that has to do with wine, spirits, beer, tobacco and distilleries. All this is in the current legislation. The government has decided to modernize the act and make it more functional. We think it is appropriate because it deals with licensing requirements, rights of accession, offences, collection provisions, records, book-keeping and warehousing. All these issues are linked to the management of the excise tax on all of the above.

Unfortunately, something was forgotten in this bill. As if by amazing coincidence, it was decided not to deal with the issue of beer in this bill. How did we get to this point?

In Quebec and in Canada, the microbreweries are going through changes. They are experiencing a great many problems. Many have shut down in recent years. When we seek the causes of this phenomenon, we realize that one of the main ones is that the market in Quebec and in Canada has been invaded by other microbreweries in the U.S., and likely Europe as well.

These countries set out in good faith to tax their microbreweries at a different rate than the big breweries. Canadian beer is taxed at 28 cents a litre, while the United States charges 9 cents. This is obviously a big difference. When the American beer arrives on the Quebec or Canadian market, it is in an advantageous position as far as price goes, particularly since the major Canadian breweries are the ones distributing it on the Canadian market.

So, it becomes more understandable why the major breweries have lobbied heavily, right up to and including influencing the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, to get her not to include the amendments relating to beer in the bill revising the Excise Tax Act—really now—and revising the entire situation. This is not going to come again anytime soon. The federal government is not going to be dealing with any other amendments to excise tax in the near future.

Why then not take this opportunity to review the entire issue and let our microbreweries enjoy the same advantages as their American and European competition in the Quebec and Canadian markets? The excise tax issue may not be an exciting one, but it does have major impacts.

Let us recall that the present government brags about helping regional and local development. The secretary of state responsible for rural development is currently touring all the major centres of Canada. This seems a bit of a paradox, being responsible for rural development touring around all the major centres to tell people how important rural communities are.

But when it comes to concrete action, when something relevant should be done, something that would help communities develop local beer, for example, and contribute in that way to tourism development, the government drags its feet. Similar markets are being developed for cheese. We can draw a parallel here.

Concerning raw milk cheese, a formidable lobby has tried to pressure the federal government into adopting requirements that apply to industrial cheese. Once again, a lobby group was involved. Right here, in this House, we had to demonstrate that raw milk cheese is something accepted everywhere. Ultimately, we won that case.

Obviously, it is very difficult for the government to admit that its position was influenced by lobby groups. In the medium term, we are bound to win this case, because logic is on our side. We won the raw milk cheese case, and we will also win the case of microbrewery beer.

Most importantly, citizens should understand that the federal government is hiding behind the fact that this bill does not deal with beer, making the amendment out of order. This is completely unacceptable.

This is a complete revision of the legislation. A number of elements should be dealt with right away, and they should be included in the bill, but they have been left out.

When we have had unanimous consent in this place and determined that a problem ought to be remedied, I have seen bills breeze through the three readings in a single day.

Why should we have to debate Bill C-47 today without amending it? Should the government not take the time to send the bill back to committee and, with the consent of all parties, include the beer industry?

The argument they give us, that it is not in the bill, is totally give unacceptable. The government has all the numbers it needs to correct the situation. There is no reason to put it off. It should make a decision rapidly in order to help microbreweries have a reasonable and adequate access to markets in Quebec, Canada and around the world, with the prospect of being sufficiently competitive.

The situation must be corrected. The Bloc Quebecois, of course, talks a lot about microbreweries in Quebec. But there are microbreweries in many other provinces of Canada. There are seven in British Columbia, five in Alberta. There are some in Manitoba, in Nova Scotia. The problem exists and we must tackle it in order to improve the situation in Quebec and in Canada.

The government has not expressed any substantial argument today. Even the last two Liberal members who spoke in support of the bill said: “We must settle the issue of microbreweries, but we do not think that it should be done in this bill”. Will we have to wait for the disappearance of all the microbreweries before talking about it? That is the reality we will have to live with.

Some were tricked in this regard. Unibroue's president said that the Minister of Justice from Quebec, who was then responsible of regional development, supported such an amendment. Where is the Minister of Justice today? Where are the other Liberal members from Quebec, who are not saying one single word in support of an emerging, developing industry that is creating local jobs not requiring very high qualifications. In a village, it can create two, three, five, ten jobs, and allow a microbrewery to operate. This is very interesting, and it could lead to all kinds of spinoffs.

I am very surprised that the federal government could not find anything to say in support of its basic position. Its members simply said, “The legislation does not say a word about beer, so we stick to what we have got”.

The flexibility required to solve such a problem is not there. I find this totally unacceptable and irresponsible on the part of the federal government. In some ways, there is something suspicious, and politically unethical.

As for the way the work was done, if we could go back in time, I think the appropriate scenario would have been that, right at the beginning of the committee's work, the chair should have said: “I cannot chair the committee because of this issue. My husband is a major lobbyist for a big multinational, for a big national brewery, and I cannot take part in this debate. I ask that the chairmanship be given to someone else”.

Thus, we would not be in the mess we are in with the government trying to defend the indefensible, that is, slowly killing Quebec and Canadian microbreweries. There is no reason for this to happen. The only reason is that, in some regards, the other side is governing according to the funding of the Liberal Party of Canada, instead of according to the interests of Quebec and Canada.

If we continue in this direction, we will find ourselves in a situation where, when the studies are completed, when the government will have made its bed on this issue, the final answer will be: “Of course, there is no point in legislating in this regard, there are no microbreweries left”. The way things are going, this is where we are headed.

What should we do to convince the government to change its attitude? Is there not a way for the government, without losing face, to add an amendment to the bill, perhaps in committee of the whole or at third reading; or with the unanimous consent of the House, the bill could be referred back to the committee so that, quickly, it might be amended to adequately protect microbreweries?

What will it take for the government to decide to budge? What will it take for it to recognize that the lobbying that was done by the big national breweries does not adequately reflect the needs of microbreweries?

If microbreweries had said that they liked the bill as it is, that this issue could be dealt with at a later date, that there was plenty of time and we should just wait, then the government would have something to defend its position.

However, there is absolutely nothing to justify the federal government's position today. The current position of the federal government has the effect of systematically reducing, day after day, year after year, the market share of microbreweries.

For the average person, it is hard to grasp why large breweries that currently have 95% or 96% of the market would absolutely want to have the other 4%. The answer is in the profits that these breweries can make.

Apparently, 1% of the market is worth $17 million in gross profits. Therefore, it is certainly in the interest of shareholders of large breweries that the government maintain its current position. Their profits continue to grow. No problem. Things are going well so they will be a little more generous with the Liberal Party of Canada. They consider that the Liberals' way of doing things is the correct one and that they protect them well. It is a big business government more than anything else.

However we are here to determine what is for the common good. In this particular industry, the way to create employment, to ensure that microbreweries have their place on the market in Quebec, in Canada and in the United States and to see the positive impact that these cottage-type operations can have on tourism is to give microbreweries some room to breathe. This is not being done at this time and, in the end, it will just lead to the disappearance of more and more microbreweries.

In my riding, there is a microbrewery that produces Bruegel beer. The brewery was established a few years ago. It is now positioning itself on the market. We can be sure that it could really use the difference between 9¢ and 18¢ a litre. This is what it takes sometimes to get into the market and allow more reasonable profit margins for retailers, bars and restaurants selling the beer and thus develop a local market without threatening the survival of large national breweries in the least.

Even if their market share were 93% or 94% instead of 95%, none of the large breweries will close because of that. That is not what will bring about closure, but it could lead to the creation of more jobs. Large breweries, with their massive and highly automated production, do not create that many jobs, in the end.

However, microbreweries, with their cottage industry style of production, need a certain number of people to operate their production line. It is to our advantage for them to expand. Until now we have not succeeded in convincing the government to remedy the situation.

I think we could call on all the members of the House to check in their ridings and their regions to see if there would not be any microbrewery. Liberal members should consider whether the stand they will take in the vote on this bill is contrary to the needs of their constituents. This might make them realize a few things that could prompt them to knock at the finance minister's door to tell him something like “I think that we could use a little more time to review this. We have all the documents, all the information and all the analysis that we need. Bill C-47 on the excise tax can be amended. Let us correct the situation”.

There are two possible courses of action. If nothing is done, the number of microbreweries could diminish dramatically. In five years, perhaps one, two, three or even four will have survived. The big national breweries will occupy this whole market and may also have bought a few microbreweries just before or after they shut down, to control that market as well. Thus, we will have been instrumental in slowing down the economy in our regions.

Alternately, if we take our responsibilities and act right now, in a few years, in five years perhaps, there will be 100 and some microbreweries in operation across Canada, contributing in a dynamic and interesting way to their communities.

It all depends on the willingness of the Canadian government to make a decision in the interest of the common good rather than that of those who influence the political parties through financing or the roles they can play. There lays the answer.

The Canadian government should go ahead now and address the situation on the basis of our arguments. Let us resume debate where it should be resumed. Let us appoint a committee chair who will be independent, who will not be or seem to be in a conflict of interest and who will see to it that the beer issue is considered and reported on promptly.

I do not think anybody in this House will object to the committee examining only that aspect of Bill C-47. As far as the other ones are concerned, we agree with what is in the bill. We could quickly review the sole issue of beer, include it in Bill C-47, and ultimately achieve the desired results.

Let us not forget that prices are an important factor on the beer market. People who buy a beer for a tasting session may be ready to pay a bit more. However, the difference in price due to the difference in taxes may prevent a microbrewery from selling its product, because its prices will be higher than those of microbreweries in the United States. Often, it is the look of the bottle, the way it is sold or the type of production that make people buy these beers. However, as far as the price elasticity of the product is concerned, one cannot sell a product that contrasts sharply with other products on the same market and with the same types of products.

So the government has a decision to make. I sincerely hope that, for the sake of our regions and our microbreweries, but also because it is an issue of fairness and almost political ethics, the federal government will reconsider its position and amend Bill C-47 and quickly reconsider amendments on beer. We would then feel that we have really done our job properly and that we were not just listening to those who make the most noise because they have the money and are able to influence the government because of it.

This is the challenge I issue to this house and to all members of parliament. I remind hon. members that when they cast their final vote, they will have made a choice, which will bring economic benefits or disadvantages. Also, they will have made a choice based on the rules of conduct we should abide by in this house but, unfortunately, do not always.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's comments, and as the saying goes we cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. No matter how often we talk about beer, it is not in the bill. However I do want to address some comments that the member made.

What are the concerns of the beer industry? The member did not raise them. They happen to be issues regarding the point of imposition, warehousing, licensing requirements, loss allowances and control on beer exports. What are the facts? Bill C-47 does not deal with the issue of beer and we have already gone through the reasons why it does not. The finance department is reviewing a report on the beer industry with regard to warehousing et cetera.

Excise duty applies to both domestic products and to imports at the same rate. Excise duty does not apply to exports. Canadian small breweries are no less competitive with regard to foreign small breweries when selling in this country.

The government and members on this side of the House are concerned about microbreweries in Canada. That is why the government is looking carefully at this issue. We will not make a change with some magic wand which may turn out to be no improvement at all. We want to ensure we get it right, and we are working in consultation with the industry. That member should know that. If he were that concerned about microbreweries he would want to ensure we get it right the first time. Unfortunately, he seems to have the view that somehow we can go ahead and do something which in fact is not in the bill.

We have already had discussions with the industry and it indicated we were to move ahead with Bill C-47 dealing with the merits of the bill itself, tobacco, spirits and wine.

It has been mentioned many times in the House that this is an administrative bill, and again the Bloc would rather play politics. The Bloc made some odious comments with regard to some linkage between large breweries and the governing party. Shame on that member for raising such nonsense when he knows beer is not in the bill. However he wants to play politics. We want to get it right and do the right thing for microbreweries.

The member across the way is correct, we want a strong microbrewery industry in Canada. I say without hesitation that we will act sooner rather than later. We will do it based on getting the facts right and by responding to specific issues rather than going headstrong off in any direction. We cannot amend something that is not there no matter how often that party wants to say it.

Would the member like to give his views on issues regarding tobacco and smuggling? How does he see the bill addressing the issue regarding small vintners which is of concern to members of that party as well. I wonder if he would like to give his views on how the bill addresses those issues.

Mr. Speaker, first, the Prime Minister himself denounced the negative attitude shown towards politicians.

When the member across says that we are on vacation here, it would also mean that he himself is on vacation, that the 301 members of parliament are on vacation. Furthermore, it means that he personally switched parties and allegiances in order to remain on vacation.

I will indeed talk about public funding. Let us have unanimous consent to apply the Quebec legislation on public funding and, within half an hour, it will be passed into law. Those who make such allegations are holier-than-thou hypocrites.

This man dares accuse us of enforcing the law, while they shamelessly rake in enormous amounts of money, Liberal leadership candidates receiving $25,000, $50,000 or $100,000 from people trying to influence them as if they were candidates to an election or party leaders, trying to influence government policies. It is absolutely unacceptable.

I think the member opposite no longer--

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When one of our colleagues impudently states that the members are on holidays, he is in contempt of the house. Therefore, I demand that you ask him to withdraw what he said. None of the 301 members of parliament is on holidays here. Everyone of us works hard. We do it legitimately, and this member has gone too far. He has offended our role, and this is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the member if it was when he was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party or of the Liberal Party that he had more holidays, and if it is not now that he has more holidays, since--

Mr. Speaker, it is astounding. If this is a holiday, I think I will pass. It is not exactly what I would call a day at the beach.

I think all members realize that people work diligently and have their own style and interests. I find it interesting to listen to a debate on issues that are not even in the bill we are debating. Obviously the holiday issue is not here. The issue of election donations is nowhere in the wording. Not once was I able to look through any of the documentation and find anything about beer. Maybe there is a relationship between beer, holidays and good times, I do not know, but it does not deal with the issue at hand.

In the short time I have left I will focus on the bill, which would be an unexpected treat I am sure for members opposite. The bill does three things. First, it is designed to provide a modern legislative framework for a simpler and more certain administrative system that recognizes current industry practices. We are talking about the tobacco industry, the spirits industry and the wine industry. We are not talking about beer. I am sorry but it is not here.

For years we have heard people say that the government should respond to current industry practices, whatever they may be, so that we can help people who are fighting against foreign competition and who are dealing with the burden of collecting and remitting taxes. It puts in place a more modern system to allow people to pay the tax at the time they actually sell the product instead of when it goes into a warehouse. That seems to me to be something the industry would want and, as my friend says, that everybody would want, including my colleagues on the other side.

I do not understand. They want to continue casting aspersions against members on this side, throwing out all kinds of nasty comments about political fundraising and making comments that do not relate to Bill C-47.

The second thing the bill does is it facilitates greater efficiency and fairness for all parties. Who is against that? This is an industry that needs to be modernized from the point of view of tax revenue. It is $3.4 billion to the federal treasury. We are not talking about small potatoes. This is a major revenue generator for the Canadian public and for the government so that we can deliver the programs that need to be delivered to the benefit of all Canadians.

This fairness to all parties issue will lead to improved administration. Are the folks on the other side against that? I do not think they are. It will lead to improved administration and reduced compliance costs.

Let us take a look at what happened with the merger of the GST and the PST in the maritimes. We tend to forget. We always say that we have one taxpayer in the country. Would it not be interesting if we only had one tax collector? We have all these different taxes going out by all these different levels of government. It is unfortunate that Ontario and the western provinces refuse to co-operate in terms of tax collection so that we can reduce the administrative burden. The bill would make it easier for companies to comply with the collection of those taxes.

The third thing the bill does is it ensures the continued protection of the $3.4 billion in excise tax revenue. Why not deal with the substance of the bill instead of the allegations and the nonsense? Why not deal with related issues such as who actually will provide the retail facilities?

In my province of Ontario we all hold our breath as we watch the current Ontario government sell off Ontario Hydro. We all suspect that the next item on the list might just be the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

It is an interesting phenomenon: taking what amounts to a public monopoly and turning it into a private monopoly with the absolute reality that the taxpayers, the people who are the purchasers of the product, will face increased costs. Why not do what the bill does in terms of providing more effective and efficient operations for the industry rather than just selling off pieces of it willy-nilly wherever the government seems to think it may be a good political hit?

It is provincial but there is a relationship. I will use the relationship of the PST and the GST as they are collected on a co-ordinated basis. What we are talking about is more efficiency and more opportunity for the industry and government to work together.

I understand that perhaps members of the Bloc are against that kind of efficiency. They would rather use any opportunity they get to raise a point of order or to speak to issues that have nothing to do with the bill. They would rather use it to perhaps make themselves look a little better back home. Being at 25% or less in the polls in the province of Quebec causes them some concern, and I understand that.

What we are dealing with here is the streamlining of a collection mechanism that generates a substantial amount of revenue. Why not talk about the spin off effects? Why not talk about the taxation effect on smuggling?

We will all recall when we had boats running across the river and people shooting guns in the middle of the night. The police were very concerned about the situation when the smuggling was going on. We all remember those days with great trepidation.

Another issue that I think is very serious in the area of tobacco is the impact on our young people. Would taxation have an impact on whether or not these young people buy single cigarettes in the schoolyard while people actually treat them as contraband and sell them to young people? I did not hear any concerns being expressed on the impact this will have on our young people. We know from targeted experience that young girls are prime candidates to begin smoking because of the peer pressure that exists.

All of this ties in and is related to the tax burden that is involved in this industry.

Mr. Speaker, on March 4, I rose in the House to ask the Minister of Labour a question concerning the Radio-Canada negotiations. Radio-Canada employees were here on the Hill, in Parliament, in order to present to members, to elected representatives, the problem they were having with Radio-Canada, particularly in the Quebec and Moncton areas concerning the lockout at the time, which is still going on today.

The minister replied as follows:

Mr. Speaker, both parties have met in the presence of our mediators, last week and again since Monday of this week.

It is important that both parties sign a new collective agreement. At this point, it is crucial to let the parties address their problems so that a good collective agreement will ensue.

This is not the time for us to start taking one side or the other.

CBC president Robert Rabinovitch sent me the following letter:

Furthermore, I would point out to you that Radio-Canada has no objection to its employees presenting their point of view to MPs. What the corporation objects to is the fact that its employees signed a written undertaking to respect the media blackout agreed to on April 3 in order to restore the climate of trust necessary for a negotiated settlement. The union broke its promise by appearing on the Hill on April 10, and Radio-Canada could not let this go by in silence.

Radio-Canada has admitted in this letter that it actually did punish its employees at the bargaining table because those employees came here to Ottawa.

I find this truly discriminatory and against the spirit of democracy. When the Minister of Labour tells us that this is not the time for us to start taking one side or the other, I wonder what the federal government said during the negotiations with Canada Post. Canada Post employees had not yet voted to strike when the federal parliament decided that employees would be ordered back to work if ever they voted to strike. Now, the government is washing its hands of the matter because it is the employer who kicked people out, who has ordered a lockout.

I would like to see how the government can take up these two cases. On the one hand, Canada Post employees had not yet gone on strike when legislation was passed here in the House of Commons by the Liberal majority. On the other hand, Radio-Canada has locked out its employees and the government does not want to interfere in the negotiations to give listeners in Quebec and in the Moncton and Atlantic region the chance to hear something else than music on Radio-Canada. I have nothing against music. However, Radio-Canada is presently making money on the backs of the employees who have lost their jobs.

Moreover, in Quebec and in Moncton, only 51% of the employees are full time employees. However, at the CBC, from Ottawa to British Columbia, 71% of the employees are full time employees. Why that difference within the corporation?

This is why I cannot agree with the CEO. It is to be hoped that the labour minister iwill ntervene and tell Radio-Canada to negotiate in good faith and, in particular, to settle with pay equity. It is unacceptable that Radio-Canada employees in Quebec and Moncton are treated differently from CBC employees in the rest of the country.

Therefore, I would like to hear what the parliamentary secretary has to say about this.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his expression of concern regarding the ongoing work stoppage affecting Société Radio-Canada and the confederation of the national trade union which represents analysts and reporters in Quebec and New Brunswick.

I am well aware of the uniqueness of the service provided by Société Radio-Canada and the important social and cultural role it plays in French-speaking Canada. I want to assure the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst that every effort is being made to assist the parties and resolve the collective bargaining differences and get the employees back to the work.

A federal mediator appointed by the Minister of Labour is meeting with the parties today and has been working closely with them for several weeks now. Prior to that the Minister of Labour appointed a conciliation officer to assist the parties in reaching an agreement. Numerous meetings were held in an attempt to arrive at a settlement.

I would like to add that it is not unusual for the parties to agree to a media blackout during mediation talks in order to focus all their attention on collective bargaining. It is unfortunate however, that negotiations in this dispute were delayed for several days earlier this month due to the confusion surrounding the blackout.

The important thing is that the parties are now at the bargaining table and are talking with the mediator. Focusing on what happened several weeks ago is not helpful in achieving the goal of assisting the parties to reach a settlement.

I am sure the hon. member would agree that the best way to achieve a mutually acceptable collective agreement is to allow the negotiation process a fair chance to work.

Mr. Speaker, I would love to agree with the parliamentary secretary, but the question I was asking earlier is as follows. Why did parliament give an opinion on the Canada Post issue when there had not yet been a strike vote and when no strike notice had been sent to Canada Post? Why did the Liberals vote overwhelmingly that these people were not be allowed to strike?

In the case of Radio-Canada, the lockout has been going on for weeks and they are putting pressure on these employees because within the 51% of those working full time, there is a group that is not part of the union. There is some pressure put on those people. In keeping them outside and in preventing people from Quebec, New-Brunswick and Atlantic Canada from getting their programs, they say that they do not want to interfere in the negotiations. If the parliamentary secretary and the government could promise that they would never again interfere in negotiations in Canada, except to send in a mediator, it would certainly be very nice to hear. But this is not what we are hearing. Now they do not want to interfere, when they usually do.

Mr. Speaker, the employer and the union are currently meeting with the assistance of a mediator in order to reach an agreement to restore normal service and put the affected employees back to work.

This is a very sensitive time in the collective bargaining negotiations for everyone concerned. It is important that those individuals who want to see the parties reach a settlement refrain from taking sides and speculating about the outcome of the dispute. The Minister of Labour will continue to provide the parties with the mediation assistance they need to reach a settlement and get the employees back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in what we in the House often call the late show. What I am looking for is an answer to a question I asked on March 22 and a month later I am hoping that tonight I will actually get the answer. The question was regarding wild Atlantic salmon, especially in the southern uplands of Nova Scotia. Specifically the question was about the postcard I have with me and 7,999 postcards like it, which were mailed to the Prime Minister by Atlantic Canadian salmon fishermen. Not one of them received a reply.

To me that is a deliberate and scandalous slap in the face to sport fishermen and fisherwomen, to environmentalists, to ecologists and to anyone remotely interested in looking after wild Atlantic salmon, which are endangered and threatened in much of Atlantic Canada, and certainly as well to the Atlantic Salmon Association and people like Lewis Hinks, people who operate and work as volunteers, many of them with the Atlantic Salmon Federation, the Gold River Salmon Association, the LaHave River Salmon Association and others.

Any elementary schoolchild in New Ross, the community I live in, who received 8,000 letters or 1 letter would attempt to answer them or it, yet the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have chosen to ignore this extremely and critically important issue for all Nova Scotians.

It is not only the important issue of trying to save the species itself; it is an important commercial industry. It is too late for the offshore commercial fleets because they have fished the offshore salmon into extinction. However, it is not too late for the local rivers and the industry that they support. Salmon fishers put $11 million into the local Nova Scotia economy. There is another $47 million put into the local economy by trout fishermen.

It is important to know how these individuals talk about the salmon population in the southern upland rivers of Nova Scotia. Some rivers are extinct. Absolutely no salmon larvae survive in those rivers. The PH level is too low because of acid rain. In other rivers there are remnant populations, and in the rest of the rivers the populations have been declared depleted. On a good day, one may live near a river that is depleted, but far too many Nova Scotians, especially in the southern upland regions, live on or near rivers that once held thriving salmon populations, but now those populations are extinct or at the very best are remnant populations not capable of breeding and supporting themselves.

There are a number of issues, but the main issue for me is certainly that if 8,000 of these cards, which were done in a very professional manner, were sent to the Prime Minister of Canada I would expect, and I think any citizen would expect, an answer. Tonight I am here to hear the answer and then I will reply to it.

Mr. Speaker, no net loss of habitat; I cannot believe the hon. member said that with a straight face.

In the southern upland region of Nova Scotia 14 rivers are dead from acid rain, absolutely no salmon are surviving in those rivers and 50 more rivers are seriously impacted. We can talk about co-operation and co-ordination and we can avoid duplication. The government knows exactly what has to be done.

The acid rain emissions that still exist in the northeastern area of the United States have to be reduced further. We have to prevent that acid rain from falling on the southern upland region of Nova Scotia. It is a very simple process. If the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had read the information sent to them by the Atlantic Salmon Association, they would already know how to deal with it.

We can talk about pH levels. This is about pH levels. It is quite simple, 5.4--