Leon Benoit

[Peacekeepers, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today our first group of peacekeepers returns from Haiti.

For the past two and a half years these troops and others have worked to build stability and democracy in a state which has for too long been ruled by a brutal dictatorship. They also helped to train a national police force so the Haitian people could walk the streets free from fear.

We sent our peacekeepers into a volatile situation that few people could handle. They not only handled it but they performed extremely well.

They earned the respect of the Haitian people and the world with their hard work, their kindness and their dedication. They did not solve Haiti's problems but no one could reasonably have expected them to.

On behalf of all Canadians, I would like to thank our peacekeepers for their good work and congratulate them on a job well done. I would also like to thank their families for their sacrifice and their crucial support.

And so I say to our peacekeepers, thank you and welcome home.

[User Fee Act, December 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-205 presented by the member for Medicine Hat.

I have heard people say that the member for Medicine Hat should be knighted for his service to the people of Canada performed through this bill. There are others who say he should be ignited. I do not know which it should be but I do appreciate that he has brought this bill forward. It is a very serious topic.

In the time that I have to speak on this bill, I will deal with the user fees and the problems they cause to farmers and those in the agricultural industry. I will focus on that area, although many of my comments could be applied to any other business or industry.

I will begin by referring to the 1993 auditor general's report, which the hon. member for Medicine Hat referred to briefly. It should have been a starting point for the government as it delved into the user fee fiasco it is in now. Second, I will deal with the principles that should guide changes to user fees. Third, I am going to talk about the general concerns that farmers and agribusiness have expressed regarding user fees. And if I have time, I will refer to what particular farm organizations and agriculture processors have said about what user fees are doing to them.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat explained his bill and the impact it would have on the whole issue of user fees. User fees as they have been used by the federal government and other levels of government have become a new way of taxing people. We had something like 36 tax increases by the government in the last Parliament plus the budget promise for a 73% increase in the Canada pension plan premium. And already in this Parliament the same government has made tax increases and sometime this week or next, because closure has been invoked, we will be debating and passing Bill C-2, the increase in Canada pension plan premiums of 73%.

Farmers who manage their businesses are faced with these very real tax increases and the increase in Canada pension plan premiums. Since most farmers own their own businesses and are self-employed, they would face an increase over five years amounting to $3,200 a year. They have that increase as well as the whole barrage of user fees that affect them both directly and indirectly. I will talk about some of these fees.

Starting with the auditor general's report, the hon. member for Medicine Hat talked a bit about the report. In the 1993 report the auditor general called for the scrutiny of Parliament on user fees. That is exactly what the hon. member for Medicine Hat is calling for in his private member's bill.

The auditor general stated: “We are concerned that Parliament cannot readily scrutinize the user fees established by contracts and other non-regulatory means”. The auditor general said that he was concerned Parliament generally does not have a chance to scrutinize new fees. He went on to say that Parliament really cannot scrutinize user fees established by contracts and other non-regulatory means: “There does not exist a government wide summary of fees being charged and revenues raised by the authorities under which they are established”.

He also said that the use of contracts on a broad scale to establish fees needs to include careful consideration of such issues as: how they would affect the parties and that parties be consulted; how Parliament would be given the opportunity to review fees established by contracts; and how users would be assured they are being charged the same price for identical services being used.

The auditor general said that Parliament should scrutinize the fees. He went on to explain that there are many increases in user fees that really are not defined as such. Therefore they are not even guided by the rules as they exist to guide the establishment and the use of user fees, including contracts. The auditor general specifically picked on contracts because we are talking about a sizeable number of dollars being put in place without being passed through Parliament, without the scrutiny of something like a parliamentary committee. The auditor general was not pleased with what had happened to that point and nothing has been done since to improve the situation.

I will talk about what the principles to guide user fees should be. Much of my material comes from what the Canadian Dehydrators Association says the principles for the implementation of user fees should be.

First, the fee must be based on the actual cost of providing the service. They are not necessarily set that way now. Some fees are much higher than the cost of the service being provided.

Second, these services must be provided cost effectively. That is a key point Reform has focused on over the past few years we have been here. We said that in many cases we believe the services are not being provided in a cost effective way and we have to make sure that they are.

Third, administrative costs must be low and the documentation requirements must be there in the operation of the business.

Fourth, there must be no cross-subsidization of services across commodities or regions. This is an important point. We have seen too much of this kind of thing in the past. We have seen too many cases where the costs in one area are being borne for costs that actually should be borne by another sector, another industry or another part of the country. Cross-subsidization should not be occurring.

Fifth, wherever possible the fees should be directly applied to prevent fee inflation to indirect application through a service provider.

Sixth, there must be a system in place for tracking the overall incidence of fees and its effect on industry with a process for consultation.

Some general concerns have been expressed by farmers and others in the agriculture industry. There are seven or eight of them. I do not know if I will get through them all, but I will see how I do. Some of these concerns have been expressed to me by many different groups. I could go through the list which includes the Ontario Corn Producers and the Canadian Meat Council. Many concerns are expressed about the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Marine Services Act.

Someone who is not familiar with what goes on in agriculture might ask how on earth can the fees charged under the Marine Services Act affect farmers. Farmers move products and the agriculture industry moves products through ports and the fees are borne by farmers.

There is the Crop Protection Institute. There are letters from many individuals and representatives of farm groups, of industry groups, and so on. They expressed the common concerns that I would like to put on record here, but I understand from your signal I will not be allowed to, Madam Speaker.

One concern I do want to express is that we cannot look at user fees in isolation. We have to look at them and their cumulative effect on industry. We can look at a whole series of user fees that do impact on any industry in the agricultural sector. There is no agency in government that looks at these total accumulation of fees and the impact on the industry. There is no government agency that looks at the comparison of fees in the other countries Canada competes with.

These are my concerns. I see that my time is up. I look forward to the hon. member for Medicine Hat doing his wrap up on the bill. I am sure he will comment on some points made by the members across the floor.

[Canada Post Strike, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, evidence of the devastating effects of the Canada Post strike can be found by talking to two men in my riding, Randy and Rod Lorenz. They own a mail order business and sell Christian books and material across the country. The month leading up to Christmas is their busiest time of the year. This mail disruption has caused their business to drop by 80%.

Even if back to work legislation is implemented immediately, it may be too late for the Lorenzes. If they lose their business, Rod also loses his homestead which he mortgaged to finance the business.

This disastrous situation was avoidable. Reform has long proposed a solution which would have averted this and all future strikes and lockouts at Canada Post while still honouring the collective bargaining process.

This government has no long term solutions. Even if their business survives the current labour dispute, the Lorenzes can look forward to more labour disruptions in the future.

I challenge the labour minister or any member of the government to look the Lorenzes in the eye and tell them that they care.

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I was not looking for unanimous consent to extend debate, although I would certainly be happy to get that. Under the rules of this debate I believe each speaker is given a half hour to make comments and then to answer questions unless they specifically state that they will share their time. Did the minister do that or will we have the half hour?

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe we should have more time for questions. I assume the minister would have a half hour spot here in this debate which would include his speech and questions. We have only had about 20 minutes.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to some of the issues which were brought up by the members who spoke. I do not have much time obviously to spend on the response to any one particular member. I will start by responding to the questions posed by the hon. member for Etobicoke North. He asked what would happen to some of the smaller breweries if barriers to internal trade were removed. He asked about Alberta specifically.

If the member wants to refer to Alberta, it would be important for him to know that the province of Alberta has led the movement to remove barriers to internal trade. Unilaterally it has made many of the changes which will be and should have been put in place by a completed agreement on internal trade. Alberta has done it unilaterally because it feels that this issue is important to Albertans.

There have been a few people who have complained about this unilateral action. They feel that Alberta should have waited until the agreement is completed. That is what my private member's bill would do. It would lead to the completion of the agreement.

Members who have called it simplistic obviously have not read it and thought it through. It is simple. It is a simple amendment, but it is not simplistic and it will do the job.

In terms of the breweries, many successful breweries are in fact micro-breweries, smaller breweries. I cannot say for sure that some would not close down as a result of removing barriers.

However, every province, each territory and the federal government, when they signed the agreement on internal trade agreed that there would be a net benefit to the people of each and every province.

That brings me to the comments made by the Bloc member. He was concerned that Quebec would lose its veto within the formula which would remove the unanimous consent requirement and put in place the consent of at least seven provinces having at least 50% of the population. His concern is completely unfounded. In fact, the Government of Quebec signed the agreement on internal trade. It agreed to a step by step process to complete the agreement. All my bill would do would be to allow for the completion of the agreement on internal trade.

The concerns put forth by the hon. Bloc member are completely unfounded because Quebec has already agreed to it, as has every other province and territory in the country.

Furthermore, I believe that Bloc members supported the implementation agreement which was introduced in 1995 and passed in 1996. This nonsense about Quebec losing its veto is completely unfounded. It has already expressed the desire to have this agreement completed and that is all my bill would do. It would put in place a more realistic formula for approval for each step in completing the agreement on internal trade.

The reactions of government members have been very vague in some ways. However, they did say they were concerned because the agreement on internal trade was signed by all governments in Canada, so how could the federal government alone make this amendment.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary if the government has even attempted to consult with the provinces and the territories to make this change or a change like this. I do not care if they use the exact method that I am putting forward. I do not care. I just want the job done.

The government has far more resources than I have in terms of coming up with a way of doing it. I believe it will work, as do members of these institutions who have studied the issue in some depth. They agree it will work.

I do not believe it is simplistic. I believe it is simple. The concerns the government has expressed are completely unfounded. I will use some quotes from Liberal ministers in the last government to back that up.

One is from Alan Toulin, writing in The Financial Post , October 25, 1996. He referred to the minister from Edmonton West hoping for agreement on internal trade in electricity. She also raised the possibility that Ottawa would use its constitutional powers to manage the country's economic union.

That would mean a more active federal government, a role in bringing about deregulation for that minister and the Minister of Industry.

On February 25, 1997 the Minister of Industry spoke to a group of Edmonton small business people at a small business conference. He said that from his point of view it would soon be time for the federal government to consider alternative strategies. To say that he was disappointed, angry or frustrated is not only how he felt but an understatement. Being this far along into the agreement with so little progress to show indicated to him that it was certainly time to re-examine the strategy.

I will close with that. I had several quotes from constitutional experts. I would be glad to table them if I am requested to do so. I thank members for their input. I thank them for their clear support in dealing with the issue. It was unanimous, I believe. If government members do not believe my bill is the best way to go in this regard, I encourage them to come up with their own and I will support it wholeheartedly.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, November 20th, 1997]

moved that Bill C-203, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to my private member's bill which I believe will do an awful lot to remove barriers to trade between provinces within Canada and between businesses within a province.

I will give some background to this bill, I will speak on what Bill C-203 will do, I will talk about the importance to Canadians of implementing this bill, then I will do something very important and read from letters of support I have received from various institutions and individuals across the country.

The agreement on internal trade was passed in this House in 1994. It was signed in 1994 by this federal government and by all provinces and the territories. It came into effect in July 1995 and I took part in the debate that preceded the passing of the bill. I supported the bill. I did not think it had gone far enough, I did not think it was strong enough, but I supported many aspects of the bill as did the Reform Party. It was right to support it.

Many of our concerns were very legitimate.

The agreement came into effect in 1995, but what the agreement really did was set a timeline and a framework for future negotiations that would complete an Agreement on Internal Trade, that agreement which would remove most of the barriers to internal trade within the country.

Unfortunately, every timeline that was set in that Agreement on Internal Trade which was passed in 1995 has passed and has not been met. None of the timelines have been met. The dates that were set have passed. What we find is a situation where a piece of legislation which had good intent, which was passed by this government in 1995, has had very little positive effect on its stated purpose which was to remove the barriers to internal trade within this country. So it has not done the job.

A main part of the reason that it has not done the job is due to a couple of terms used in the agreement, particularly the term “agreement by consensus” between the provinces, the federal government and the territories, or between all provinces and the territories. This term “agreement by consensus” has been interpreted by this group to mean “unanimous consent”.

The way the provinces and the territories have been interpreting this term “agreement by consensus” is that every single province and each territory and the federal government must all agree to any change which would help complete the Agreement to Internal Trade.

My bill would remove that unanimity requirement that has been self-imposed by the board. It would instead put in place a mechanism which would require consent of at least seven provinces, including at least 50% of the Canadian population. That is a formula which is much more realistic and which will allow, I believe, the completion of this Agreement on Internal Trade. With the completion of the Agreement on Internal Trade will come removal of most of the barriers to trade within this country. I will talk a little later about the importance of that to Canadians.

Back to a little bit of background, I have had people say: “With what you are proposing”—not many, mind you; they have mostly been from the Liberal Party—“are you not letting the federal government be heavy-handed in this issue?”

In fact, that is not the case at all. It is not the case at all because again what I am saying is that only in cases where the provinces and the federal government and the territories together have not been able to reach an agreement could the federal government impose a settlement when we have had agreement of at least seven provinces, including at least 50% of the population.

Second, Bill C-203 would apply only to cases where the proposal falls within the federal legislative powers as established by the Constitution Act of 1867. That is the part of the act that relates to the interprovincial trade. Particularly, we are talking about section 91 of the BNA Act of 1867, which states that legislative authority of Parliament extends to the regulation of trade and commerce, and section 121 of the BNA Act which states that all articles of growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall, from after the union, be permitted into each of the provinces.

Clearly, section 121 of the BNA Act says that it is the obligation of the federal government to ensure free movement between provinces. The federal government has abdicated this responsibility in particular for the last 80, 90 years and it has allowed one barrier after another, after another, after another build up so that we do not have free movement of goods in this country anymore. It has come to the point where people who run successful companies have come to me and said “It is absolutely ridiculous in this country when it is more difficult for me to move goods to another province than it is for me to do business with a company in the United States”.

I have also had people who run successful companies come to me and say “I have stayed in Canada as long as I possibly can. I want to be a Canadian. I want to do business in this country. But if I want to do business with all ten Canadian provinces and the territories, I can do it much more easily from a company based in the United States”. That is the situation we have today. It makes no sense. It is costing Canadians an awful lot of money.

I will mention some of the studies that have been done which have shown the cost to Canadians.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce stated that a 10% increase in internal trade would result in 200,000 new jobs. With unemployment hanging around 9%, those 200,000 new jobs would be very important indeed. Of course, an increase in internal trade beyond 10% would mean even more jobs.

The Fraser Institute stated that removing interprovincial trade barriers would increase family income by $3,500 a year. The average family income would increase $3,500 a year.

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association stated that removing these barriers to internal trade would mean $6 million to $10 million more being put into the Canadian economy. That would have a huge impact.

I know I only have five minutes remaining, so I am going to skip over some of the things I was going to cover. However, I am going to refer to two studies which I believe must be referred to when we are talking about the complete lack of success of the agreement on internal trade that was passed in 1995.

A federal study leaked last May found that the agreement on internal trade only addresses 13% of the thousands of interprovincial trade barriers faced by the 50 companies who were taking part in this government survey. The study found that 56% of the trade barriers could be addressed if the agreement were completed. Only 13% had been removed, but 56% of the barriers would be removed if the agreement were completed.

We have to wonder why this government has not been more serious about removing these barriers. Surely that alone should indicate that this government should implement this bill. If it does not like the bill exactly as it is, then I say “Go ahead. Make the changes that you want to make to it, but put in place legislation which will implement the agreement on internal trade”. It is too important to Canadians to ignore.

Last spring the Canadian Federation of Independent Business asked their members the following question: Should the federal government take steps to ensure that the provisions of the agreement on internal trade are enforced without further delay? Of those who responded, 58% said yes, 21% were undecided, 10% were not interested in the issue and only 11% said no. When asked a question which directly relates to my private member's bill, only 11% said “No, don't do that”. Fifty-eight per cent said “Yes, and do it quickly”.

I would like to refer to some letters of support which I received from important groups in Canada.

The first letter comes from the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce. This letter is dated November 3, 1997. I sent a letter to a couple of dozen key institutions across the country and asked them if they would write a letter of support specifically for my private member's bill.

This letter is from John Winter, president of the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce. It reads: “The British Columbia Chamber of Commerce would like to commend you on your initiative to improve trade opportunities within Canada. Much has been made of the success Canadian businesses enjoy in a free trade environment within North America, and the opportunity to improve trade conditions in Canada is overdue. We support you in your efforts and wish you much success in passing An Act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.” That is the title of my bill.

That is from the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce.

From the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Catherine Swift, CEO, a letter written November 4, 1997 in response to that same letter: “Thank you for your recent letter on Bill C-202, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act. Small and medium size businesses in Canada have long supported the elimination of internal trade barriers and welcome your initiative on this matter.

“In your letter, you cited CFIB's recent mandate ballot survey which showed that 58% of the respondents supported the federal government ensuring that provisions to the agreement on internal trade are enforced without further delay.

“I have attached the full text of the question as well as two earlier member votes on related topics to your information.

“Please be assured that Canada's small businesses are supportive of your initiatives in this area”.

From the C.D. Howe Institute, I want to make clear up front that this letter is from Daniel Schanen, a real expert in this area. He does say, and I want to get to this first: “Our mandate as an independent institute does not allow us to support or disapprove of particular bills”. But the rest of his letter goes on to show strong support for the initiative that I have taken through this piece of legislation.

They also expressed the importance of the barriers to internal trade being removed in this country. So many of the letters really stressed their disappointment in the lack of action on the part of this government when it came to making some progress on implementing the agreement on internal trade, finishing the deal so that we have barriers to trade reduced and eliminated in this country.

We have the information from studies on the importance of removing these barriers to internal trade. The industry minister has stated on several occasions that he thinks this is an important issue.

I guess I have to ask why this same industry minister who again and again has stressed the importance has said, and I have a quote here on that, that maybe it is time that the federal government went beyond what it proposed to really do what it has a right to do and ensure that this deal is completed.

Every single province and every territory in this country said that if the agreement on internal trade is passed, the people of their provinces would be better off.

That confirms the information that has been received from studies and from the responses I have received from the letters I have sent out on this bill.

I appreciate the time given to me to present my bill and to make some key points on it. I look forward to the debate from other members on this bill.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, that is a hard act to follow and I will try not to do so.

I will talk about Group No. 4. It contains over a dozen amendments to Bill C-4 which deal with a wide range of issues. The issues are so wide ranging that it will be very difficult to touch on half of them in the time I have. I am concerned about the fact that the amendments are not grouped in a way that would make debate a little easier.

The first motion I want to talk about is Motion No. 5 brought forward by the Reform member for Peace River. The member for Brandon—Souris already talked about this amendment. It was interested that he was quoted in a newspaper recently as saying he had found friends in the Liberals and the New Democrats but would never co-operate or find friends in the Reform. Yet here he is fully supporting the amendment of the member for Peace River. I appreciate the change of heart on the part of that member. I think it is progress.

The member for Brandon—Souris presented the case on Motion No. 5 quite well. I think I can leave it at that. He did a good job of explaining that amendment.

The next amendment I will talk about is Motion No. 8 which I put forward. The purpose of the amendment is to set out what a quorum would be on this partially elected and partially appointed board which it seems the Liberals are determined to give us. What Reform wants is a completely elected board. We think farmers will settle for nothing less. We are to get a partially appointed and partially elected board. The board will consist of 15 members, 5 appointed under Bill C-4 as it stands and 10 elected.

Depending on how quorum is set by the minister, I have concern that a quorum could consist of all appointed directors. In a case where a meeting is called and for some reason the elected members cannot make it to the meeting, we have nothing to assure us that a board of only appointed members could make serious decisions about the future of the board or about operations of the company.

I do not think this amendment could possibly be opposed by government members. It would ensure that we have a good quorum with at least two-thirds of the members, 10 out of the 15, and that we have a ratio of at least 2:1, two elected directors and one appointed. That is very important. We can then be assured that at least the elected directors will be there and will have their say at the meetings. I encourage the government to support Motion No. 8. It will be difficult to understand why It would not.

I will talk a bit now about Motion No. 9. It concerns the hiring and firing of the president-CEO. The way Bill C-4 amends the Canadian Wheat Board Act the minister would appoint the person to the position of president-CEO. It is very unusual for a president and a CEO to be the same person. It is very unusual to have the chief executive officer whose job is to run the daily operations of the company also sitting on the board as its president. It is extremely difficult to understand why the government would propose that type of a situation.

Let us look at the background, at the philosophy of wheat pools, for example. Members opposite often refer to what pools offer and how pools operate. If they looked at how pools and co-operatives operate they would know that no one but an elected board of directors would hire or fire the president of the board.

For example, delegates and directors of the Alberta Wheat Pool are elected by members who meet. First they elect a president. Then the same board of directors hires the chief executive officer. At any time they choose they can fire the chief executive officer. These people would never be the same two people. It is a situation which to some extent would involve a conflict of interest, having the chief executive officer who is to carry out the wishes of the board of the directors sitting on the board as president. Having one person filling both positions is extremely unusual.

If we look at the model set out by co-operatives and by the prairie pools we find that it is in complete conflict with what the government has done in Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

Motion No. 9 in the name of the member for Prince George—Peace River is an extremely important amendment. It is important that this is passed. I hope members opposite will understand the importance of the motion, especially those who so strongly support co-operatives as I do. Let us learn from what we have seen in co-operatives.

There are several other motions that I want to talk about, but I will have to limit myself in that I only have a few minutes. The next one is Motion No. 10. It deals with who should vote and how many votes a certain operation should have. We do not know how the voting will be set up. That will be dealt with in the original election under the regulations. That is a concern because it should be in the legislation.

The rules for voting should be right in the legislation so that we know how the voting will take place. That will not happen. The regulation will be set after the bill is passed as it surely will be because the government will ram it through.

A member of the NDP said earlier that a farmer that grows one bushel of grain should have the same vote as a farm that has a permit book and may be the sole means of support of three, four or five families. Many farms have one permit book for several families. That member said that a farmer who grows one bushel of grain should have one vote the same as a farm that supports three, four or five families.

It is nonsense. It makes no sense. That is why we have an amendment that would at least say that a minimum of 50 tonnes of grain have to be produced to be eligible to vote, and 50 tonnes is not much. A commercial farm would grow many times that. It is certainly not a number that would eliminate any farmers who are anywhere near being commercial farmers.

Another change that must take place in the voting arrangements is to make it so that farmers who do not have a permit book but who grow grains like wheat and barley that are under wheat board jurisdiction will have a right to vote. Many farmers have chosen not to use the wheat board so they do not get a permit book. It is a very deliberate move on their part. Why should they not be allowed to vote when it comes time to elect a director to the Canadian Wheat Board? The answer is very difficult to understand.

I have heard several members of Parliament from other parties say that is the way it should be. If you do not have a permit book, you should not be eligible to vote. Of course that will all be determined in the regulations and we do not know what will be in the regulations.

I am very concerned about the voting. I was hoping this bill would never get to a stage where there would be a vote. Maybe the government will see the error of its ways here and completely scrap this bill. It might happen. In my dreams it will happen. I suppose it is not very likely.

This piece of legislation should be scrapped because clearly it is not going to do anything to improve the Canadian Wheat Board. It is not going to make it any more accountable to prairie farmers. It is not going to reduce the power and control of this government and of the minister. I think that is another extremely important amendment.

Since I am getting an indication that my time is up, I will say that I have so much more that I would like to say to these amendments. If I have no more time, I will make some further comments when we get to future amendments. It is important that there are members of the Reform Party who can really identify with the farmers who will be affected by this legislation to speak out on these amendments.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 4 with the following:

“rum at the meetings, which shall be at least two-thirds of the board members and a ratio of two elected directors to one appointed director, and the confidentiality”

[Trade, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, three years ago this government, along with all provinces, signed the agreement on internal trade.

This agreement laid out a framework and timetable for completing the agreement which would remove barriers to trade within Canada. Each province agreed that removing internal trade barriers would benefit that province. Yet this government has done little to complete the agreement. One deadline after another has been missed.

Studies have shown that a 10% increase in internal trade would create 200,000 jobs and that the removal of trade barriers would increase average family income by $3,500.

This afternoon my Private Members' Bill which would lead to the completion of this agreement will be debated. This bill would force the government to complete the agreement in areas where it has the consent of the majority of provinces, including at least 50% of the population. The bill is supported by the President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the President of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and a list of others.

This afternoon we will see whether this government has any interest at all in completing the agreement which would do so much for Canadians.