Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, December 7, 1995

.1105

[English]

The Chairman: I think we'll begin. I welcome the new folks here.

We have really two items of business on our agenda today. First, we will hear from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Tim Reid is the president and an old pal of mine, I have to confess. I know that the chamber has been very much involved in the background and in promoting the internal trade agreement, and we'd like to have a sense both of their role in all of that and their thoughts on the current piece of legislation.

.1110

Then no later than 12 p.m., and perhaps earlier, we will turn to the bill itself on clause-by-clause, and I hope we'll proceed in an expeditious fashion.

Just to alert people, if I understand Mr. Harper, the Reform Party is not bringing forward amendments at this stage, but

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau will have amendments. We're having them photocopied for everybody.

[English]

Without further introduction, I would like to welcome the representatives of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and invite Mr. Reid to make some opening comments.

Mr. Timothy Reid (President, Canadian Chamber of Commerce): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I'd like to introduce Sharon Glover, our senior vice-president, policy and government relations. She works on these issues very closely with me and coordinates our business volunteers, who give us the advice that we often bring to committees such as yours.

[Translation]

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is the most important and most representative commercial association in the country. Our members come from all areas of small business which is why we can speak for all areas of business in Canada. Thanks to our network of 500 community chambers and boards of trade we have partners in all the federal ridings.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, before addressing the bill in question, I would like to indicate to the committee that it is the intent of the chamber to speak to the overall broad policy issue and the basic reason we feel such a bill and such an approach are necessary by the federal and provincial governments. The first part of my remarks really gives you the view we have, as a national chamber with roots right across Canada, of the importance of this bill in terms of job creation in this country and economic growth into the future.

Interprovincial trade and investment flows have contributed significantly to Canada's living standards, employment opportunities, and economic efficiency, as well as to our international competitiveness. I think we must remember the advice of the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada in a key conclusion of the 1985 report:

Canadian businesses and our members right across this country know that home markets and Canada-wide intercorporate linkages and partnerships matter when it comes to success on the world scene. A solid domestic base gives companies the strength and stability they need to conquer foreign markets and to compete against foreign imports into Canada.

Access to markets in other provinces gives Canadian companies a base, providing opportunities to grow, allowing them to reduce unit costs and better compete with foreign rivals. Better access to goods and services produced in other provinces also lowers consumer prices and increases choices for Canadians.

A free internal market also makes Canada a more attractive place in which to invest for both Canadians and foreigners. That was the basic rationale behind the internal trade agreement signed by the Prime Minister and provincial premiers in July 1994.

The key point here is that the further lowering of these barriers will stimulate even greater interprovincial trade, investment, business linkages, and job creations across this country.

.1115

Let me again underline some basic facts that are not well known to the Canadian public and not well known to people living particularly outside the major urban centres of the country, for example, Montreal.

Canada is a highly interdependent economy with large volumes of interprovincial trade and investment flows. In 1993 provinces sold $140 billion to each other. In other words, over one-fifth of Canada's GDP was traded interprovincially. Interprovincial trade linkages in Canada are relatively higher than trade within the European Union, accounting for almost 21% of GDP in Canada compared to only 11% in the European Union.

Over 1.9 million jobs in Canada are directly and indirectly related to interprovincial exports. Of those jobs, 470,000 are in Quebec and they are dependent upon customers in the other provinces and territories of Canada.

In 1990 Quebec exported more to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick than to any country in Europe, including France. Quebec exported more to Newfoundland than to Japan or France, more to P.E.I. than to Belgium. They exported more to Saskatchewan than to Japan and more to Alberta or British Columbia than to all of Asia.

Quebec's exports to other Canadian provinces, customers in other provinces and territories of Canada, account for over 20% of Quebec's GDP, one out of every five dollars earned in that province.

In 1993 Quebec's $1.1 billion surplus on interprovincial trade with customers elsewhere in Canada helped to offset Quebec's $6.6 billion international trade deficit.

It's important to underline that the most recent data available from the Quebec bureau of statistics shows that 2,513 establishments in the province of Quebec exported manufacturer goods to other provinces in 1990, compared to only 1,610 manufacturing companies that exported to foreign countries.

Quebec enterprises benefiting from interprovincial trade, customers in other provinces and territories of Canada, are not concentrated in Montreal but are spread widely throughout the province of Quebec. Seven of the fifteen regions in Quebec met or exceeded the provincial average of 29% of total manufacturing shipments exported to customers in other provinces and territories of Canada. These are: Lanaudière, with 40% of manufactured products in that region exported to customers elsewhere in Canada; Laval, with 36% of the manufacturing exports billed to customers elsewhere in Canada; Estrie, with 30%; and Mauricie - Bois-Francs, with 29%. In Quebec City itself, 29% of the manufactured products produced go to customers in other provinces and territories in Canada. Only Côte-Nord, Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine, at 5%, have a very low level of shipments to customers and other provinces and territories of Canada.

Quebec then is a province that is most dependent on interprovincial trade in manufactured goods. It had the highest share of GDP accounted for by the sales in manufacturing goods in Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I point out those facts for a number of reasons. One is obviously the debate in this country about our unity. The point I want to underline here is that a vast level of ignorance exists in this country, right across this country, about the importance of customers in other parts of Canada, both for people producing goods and services in provinces and territories other than Quebec, but particularly in Quebec and particularly outside of Montreal.

So we want to say here that the premiers, including the Premier of Quebec, and the Prime Minister of Canada, took a very important step in trying to realize that we can grow those jobs in this country from 1.9 million, 470,000 of which are in Quebec, if we really act hard, fast and responsibly in terms of implementing this bill and ensuring we indeed have a bill that enables Canada to create those jobs by enhancing business linkages across this country.

.1120

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has been advocating for quite some time now the removal of hundreds of the impediments to interprovincial trade and investment that impose an unnecessary and unacceptable burden on the Canadian people and weaken our international competitiveness.

Our members' concerns about the cost of these barriers to interprovincial trade and investment, to their operations, to their own profits, as well as to the economy of their respective provinces, are very well founded. In our recent interprovincial trade survey of 25,000 business people across this country, a full 95% of the respondents said interprovincial trade is important to the economy of their province.

A majority of companies across Canada of all sizes, les moyennes, les petites, les grandes entreprises in every province, every territory, said the federal, provincial and territorial governments are not working fast enough to remove these barriers to internal trade in Canada.

It's important to note, Mr. Chairman, that companies have said this since the signing of the agreement on internal trade. The chamber was encouraged by the recent efforts of Minister Manley and the Department of Industry officials to take the lead in pressing for a comprehensive accord to remedy this major economic problem.

In the opinion of our members, the agreement on internal trade can only best be classified as a partial success. It's an agreement. It's a start, however, in that it does dismantle some of the impediments to the full mobility of goods, services and investments across provincial boundaries.

However, by having explicitly exempted certain sectors in a rules-based agreement, governments may also have served to prolong the life of certain barriers and institutionalized discrimination in some areas to the detriment of the people of this country.

The chamber is particularly concerned about the exclusion of certain large sectors of the economy, such as financial services and crown corporations, from the coverage of this agreement. As you know, in the back of this book are the lists of those exceptions province by province. Some provinces have none. Others have massive numbers of exceptions that almost ridicule the entire effort.

We are also displeased with the numerous loopholes to the agreement, including agriculture and regional economic development programs, and the very weak and easily circumvented provisions that some chapters contain.

Lastly, we must also express our displeasure at the inability of governments to follow through on their commitment to extend the coverage of the agreement to the MASH sector, so-called, and the energy sector by July 1, 1995, in spite of a firm obligation to do so.

It is imperative for the operation of efficient internal markets that all governments in Canada strive to create and maintain a free trade environment unrestricted by regional concerns. Catering to the narrow self-interests of certain sectors, certain politicians, indeed, certain businesses and regions, is not only short-sighted in the kind of world we are moving into in terms of international competitiveness but also puts in jeopardy the broader public and economic good of this country.

All governments, beginning with the federal government, must therefore strongly disavow all forms of open or covert trade restraints and investment restraints and move quickly to dismantle the remaining impediments to free movement.

Let me then conclude, Mr. Chairman. We think this can be done in two ways. At a minimum, all governments must take the necessary steps to fulfil the many commitments and obligations they undertook when they signed the agreement. As missed deadlines do not go by unnoticed, it is also essential governments do so within the prescribed timeframes.

The chamber does not want to see a repeat of what has happened with the MASH and energy sectors, where the deadlines were allowed to slip away with little concern on the part of the federal government or the other governments.

Most importantly, however, it is imperative that the federal government quickly get the provinces and territories on board to work towards significant broadening of the scope of the agreement. New economic sectors must be brought under the fold of the agreement on internal trade with the exceptions and loopholes kept to an absolute minimum.

We would also like to suggest bringing in a preamble that strengthens the intent of the bill. We have some suggested wording for that.

.1125

Mr. Chairman, those are the comments we wanted to make. We feel very strongly that we must not lose sight of the tremendous opportunities Canada has, the tremendous opportunities the business people in this country have in every province and territory, to be competitive internationally.

Getting rid of the barriers to internal trade, getting rid of the barriers to investment in this country internally, strengthening the strategic alliances between companies, say, in Trois-Pistoles or the company in Vancouver, to tap into the Taiwan market - that's the future. Creating jobs in this country, that's the future, and that is why we believe this bill is essential but only a start.

Sharon Glover and I, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, would be very pleased to elaborate on any of these views or attempt to respond to any of your questions. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Reid. I was intrigued as I looked through the formal text that you submitted. The fascinating statistics, using Quebec as your work model, didn't seem to be in the text I got. I speak for myself, and I suspect for other members, when I say we would like to have a copy of those quite remarkable statistics using Quebec as a particular example of its manufacturing relationships with the rest of the country. If you could get those to us, all of my colleagues would find them helpful.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): First I'd like to thank Mr. Reid for his testimony and congratulate him for the interest he has in Quebec's economy and especially in its exports to Canada.

I'd like to know if he's also interested in what Quebec imports from the other Canadian provinces. If you have any statistics on that, I'd like to get them as a matter of the same courtesy you extended the chair who asked you for others.

I'd like to ask you what your perception of the Secretariat's role provided for in the accord will be in its implementation. What would the Secretariat's terms of reference and scope be in all interprovincial trade activities?

[English]

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman and members, we'd be very pleased to table the rather breakthrough analysis we've done with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which indeed does show the imports into different provinces and into Quebec, as well as the exports. What I tried to do this morning was to obviously emphasize the importance to Quebec of having customers in the rest of Canada. I'd ask Ms Glover to comment on the more precise question the hon. member asked.

Ms Sharon Glover (Senior Vice-President, Government Relations and Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce): In terms of how this committee in particular and how the bill apply to what Mr. Reid was referring to, our point is - and we've used Quebec as an example - that this country benefits an awful lot from interprovincial trade, and our goal is to grow our GDP as a country. The more and the freer trade we can get within our own borders, the more that will happen. Quite frankly, in some of the provinces it's much easier to trade north-south than it is east-west. We find that absolutely disgusting.

We'd like to see this committee and this bill put on more pressure. We'd like to see the federal government, quite frankly, put more pressure on the provinces to get their act together and to quit being so parochial in implementing parts of the internal trade agreement. So that's how we think you can be of great help and how C-88 will fit into the whole thing.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: To continue on the data for each province, I'd be very interested... There's something really fantastic in your work: you've managed to set out your data by region. You have the Eastern townships, the Laval region, the Mauricie region, where I come from, the North Shore and so forth.

If we could get the same thing for the province of Ontario, more specifically, exports towards Quebec from areas like Toronto, Oshawa, Cornwall and Hamilton, it could be shown even more clearly that we will all have to think in terms of tariff barriers being abolished as well as economic and even political partnerships if Quebeckers decide to take care of their own business some day. It would be in everyone's interest to have that kind of data because they could be very useful.

.1130

To get back to my initial question, how do you see the role of the future Secretariat? What is the scope of its terms of reference? Do you think one of its roles, for example, should be to promote agriculture, which isn't presently covered in the agreement? In your opinion, how far could that go?

[English]

Mr. Reid: I think it's a fundamental question, and it has to do with the role of a secretariat with respect to the political level.

Our presentation this morning is stressing the political level, in other words, the political will to make Canadians right across Canada, as you suggest, aware of the tremendous importance of customers and suppliers in other provinces and strategic alliances to get into foreign markets.

So I would see the roles of the politicians and the secretariat having a critical function in raising the awareness of people, again, those people who aren't necessarily businesspeople, who have customers in other provinces. The roles would be to make them aware of the advantages a federal state has offered in terms of businesses being able to do business together, expand, be competitive in foreign markets, and create jobs for Canadians.

The chamber believes very firmly, and is playing a role in this, that to a great extent ignorance is the evil in what's happening in this country today. So we see our role as a business association is to work with the government and the secretariat to make sure that Canadians right across this country realize the benefit of doing business within a federal structure.

That is our purpose. We believe in it deeply, and we'd be very pleased to work at the political level with the secretariat, with public servants, to get to the grassroots communities across this country with that message.

The Chairman: Mr. Harper, have you any questions?

Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's not a question.

I just wanted to reinforce what you said in your opening remark, in the figures you opened up with, regarding the trade with Quebec. I found these quite astounding, and I was ignorant of those numbers.

On hearing them I wondered if you could perhaps share with us some details on the role the chamber played in Quebec in the referendum. Did they take an active role in making sure that this kind of information was made available to people in Quebec?

Mr. Reid: We'd be very pleased to do that, because precisely a year ago we had - we have - as you know, a very big board of directors, small businesspeople, representatives from the bigger companies...but we are grassroots, 500 chambers. Only representatives from the chambers of commerce locally have a vote at our annual meeting.

So when we decide to do something, we must build consensus. We would like to see more people in this country trying to build consensus as well.

The role we played was very straightforward. We believed we could commission a study, which we did with some expert knowledge of Global Economics Ltd. Some of you may know Patrick Grady, a real professional.

We sat down with him, Sharon Glover, myself, but also with business volunteers. We had a Canada committee. We're a federal, national, business association, and we said, we don't think people in this country, even businesspeople, even our members, understand the extent to which over more than 100 years we have built up very intricate business linkages among businesspeople in this country.

Let's find out the extent to which jobs in this country depend on trade within Canada, not within a province, but traded goods, as they call it.

We felt that in a sense there was almost too much emphasis being given to international trade agreements. We fought for the free trade agreement and the NAFTA, getting chambers very much involved in the APEC issues. But we said, what about our own country? What about businesspeople doing business within their own country together, creating those jobs?

So we commissioned a study. We produced the study, and as you said, we found that the Quebec bureau of statistics had some fascinating analysis about exports from the various regions in Quebec to customers in other provinces and territories. That was the first time it had been exposed publicly.

.1135

We would just love to be able to get the data that shows that kind of regional breakdown, not just by other provinces but within a large province like Quebec.

So we produced the study. I'm very pleased to say that we had a press conference in Montreal in May, and the study was prepared for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and la Chambre de commerce du Québec. In other words, it's factual. It was trying to drive out the evil of ignorance in this country on a key issue, and we're very proud of that.

I'll conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that we then did a survey of 25,000 businesspeople across this country. We had about 3,000 responses from all across Canada, including Quebec. We published those results, and again they underlined the fact that businesspeople, particularly entrepreneurs and those in smaller and medium-sized companies, thought about the importance to their economy, whether it was in Quebec or any province, of having customers and business dealings with people outside Quebec or outside their own province.

That was a breakthrough study. We released that in Montreal a week before the referendum was called. It created a great deal of discussion, again about the importance, in this case primarily the importance that Quebec entrepreneurs, smaller businesspeople, particularly outside Montreal.... It showed that they understood the importance of having markets, customers, goodwill from other businesspeople in this country in order for their economy to grow, to create jobs in their economy, and for their profits to grow so they could hire more people.

We felt we'd given them, if you like, a ballot to say what they thought would happen in the event of the vote on the referendum. Our belief is a positive belief that we have built something among businesspeople in this country. We should build upon that, create those jobs, win out in international markets.

So we're saying we ought to work together - and this bill is a good example of that - to create more than just 1.9 million jobs in this country, more than 170,000 jobs in Quebec. Let's create those jobs together in this country, and you can do it within a federal structure that has proven its value. It's a federal structure that has to be reformed and revised, but it's a federal structure that enabled us to work together in this country as businesspeople and to conquer those foreign markets.

Mr. Harper: Thanks very much, Tim.

Ms Bethel (Edmonton East): I appreciate those comments on unity and your initiatives in Quebec during the referendum, but I guess my interest is nation building over the longer term.

When you talk about the value of interprovincial trade, free barriers and international trade, it's clear it's in all of Canada's best interest to get on with it.

There has been resistance, and I agree with you, we haven't gone far enough with this. There has been resistance, according to some from three provinces in particular, B.C., Saskatchewan and Ontario. There has also been resistance from some very important stakeholders, that is, labour.

I would be interested to know what the chamber is doing to promote interprovincial trade and international trade among those groups. All of us see the value as a nation-building exercise.

Ms Glover: Perhaps I can start with an answer to that. As Tim mentioned in his presentation, we do have a network of 500 local chambers of commerce. That network is extremely important to us, and it's an extremely good way of getting into towns and communities across Canada.

They're very much aware of the work the Canadian chamber has been doing on interprovincial trade. So they're very much aware: they all have copies of our reports, the statistics, about how interprovincial trade has benefited Canada.

In every province we also have a provincial chamber of commerce. We've been working with them to try to push their provincial representatives to work harder on the interprovincial trade agreement, but unfortunately -

Ms Bethel: I understand the structure, but I'm really interested in the initiatives.

Ms Glover: Well, I'm trying to explain to you that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.... If you understand some of the local chambers across Canada, they're no more than three staff people. They can't do work on interprovincial trade. What they can do is talk to their local MPPs, talk to their members of the federal and provincial legislatures to say, get on with it, quit stalling, this is in nobody's interest.

.1140

So that's how we work with our local chambers of commerce.

We talk to the provincial chambers, of course, before any negotiating meetings about what they might do to influence their provincial politicians. Depending on who's in power and whether they're interested, they see it in their best interest to negotiate internal trade, as B.C. and Saskatchewan clearly did not.

Sometimes it's like pushing against a brick wall.

Ms Bethel: I guess it's just a matter of priorities. I would think those would be four priorities: bringing labour onside and going after those provinces. There's no question that is very important, but there's also creating a real will for change among the public. That's what makes it able to be done politically. It's the thing we need to do.

Mr. Reid: If I could briefly comment, the chairman noted that my opening comments were not contained in the submission we tabled with you. That's because we sat down yesterday and thought about this issue. We said, here we're appearing in front of a committee of the people, a parliamentary committee. How can we try to use that committee in a constructive way?

That is in direct response to your question. We said, let's come in here and talk about this terrible ignorance in this country, in the hope that we would provide some new knowledge and help to promote the kind of message we've been trying to make for three years now, and on which we thought our May study was really quite definitive. We're working on this.

When I give speeches to local chambers of commerce, for example, we have a number of themes. This is on the top of our agenda right now. Why? It's because of the vote on the referendum.

We did this work. We diffused it as far as we could in Quebec through the media, and we're not a rich organization. We said, now is the time to come back with this information to ensure that Canadians, not just in Quebec but across this country, realize the benefit of doing business across this country. So we took that time.

Ms Bethel: Mr. Reid, I do appreciate that. I hope we'll move on to these four particular areas, but I appreciate the initiatives and understand them. I've been a member of the chamber, and I actually chaired one of the committees.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Are there other comments or questions? I guess I might add my appreciation.

It's my regret that you weren't here on Tuesday when we had some representatives of - I begin to think of them as - the mishmash MUSH sector. They were from community colleges and school boards, arguing that, well, you know, we shouldn't have these rules-based regimes that force people to go to tender for small amounts of money. We need a principles-based regime that allows us to deal more efficiently and not have to go through all this expense.

What would you have told those people had you been in the room? I can tell you, we told them a few things on our own. Do you deal with this sector? How do you take on-board and deal with their arguments?

Mr. Reid: I'd just make one comment, and then let Sharon talk. I'd tell them to wake up in terms of what's happening in the world.

Ms Glover: Using that as the introduction, I think we would also further that and say this: the problem when you allow somebody...essentially you're letting them off the hook. You're letting them put into an agreement principles that they know they won't have to follow if they choose not to.

So it's almost worse than having nothing in the agreement, because in fact you've put something in that is completely meaningless, so no one will ever bother them again. In fact we would view it as worse than nothing, putting something based on principles in that agreement.

I think they have to have their feet to the fire, and we must have a rules-based agreement.

The Chairman: It was very curious. There was a question we didn't have time to ask. We should have said to them all, do you mean that in Canada, as it's now constructed, with all these trade barriers, we have the most efficient way of procuring stuff for their schools, and that nothing need be changed?

That was really the implication.

I know Mr. Rocheleau

[Translation]

still has questions.

.1145

Mr. Rocheleau: There's a lot of talk about the economic ties between Quebec and the rest of Canada and also about the ignorance of Canadians concerning the importance of interprovincial trade links. Do you really intend to inform the rest of Canada about how important Quebec is for the Canadian economy, about the close ties that exist with regard to Quebeckers consuming goods produced in the other Canadian provinces or was that just a concern for the duration of the referendum?

[English]

Mr. Reid: I think your last point is well taken. We wanted to ensure that the people who had a vote on that day were as well informed as they could be. We just had a board meeting and the reason we decided to come back into this question as a business association on business issues is that it's no longer simply a question of voters in one province, in terms of what will unfold in this country over the next time period.

We surveyed 25,000 entrepreneurs and business people across Canada. It wasn't just in Quebec. The survey results are in our report. We believe it's very important that not just the business people in other provinces who do business with Quebec, have suppliers from Quebec, sell to Quebec or have strategic alliances to get in to some of the markets in Europe, where it's an advantage to have a French-speaking partner....

Now is the time for Canada to wake up to the tremendous benefits that people in this country enjoy because of the federal structure that has enabled business people in this country to prosper - and not just the big companies, but the smaller ones too - by working together. I see it in the Asia-Pacific, where you see strategic alliances among Canadian companies winning bids in Taiwan and Indonesia. The whole Team Canada approach is an attempt to bring business people in Canada together to win contracts in those big, expanding markets.

I think it's time that people involved in public life - including you people, who are taking tremendous risks by getting elected and being in public life - business people, labour people and university people, start to talk about the benefits that have arisen from the federal structure, a structure that must be changed and transformed to meet the world of the next ten or twenty years, because we don't want to say that we've reached the maximum that we can achieve in that federal structure.

We can build a future for our children so that they don't have to go work in places like Hong Kong when they graduate from McGill or other universities. They can work in this country. I think it's time to speak up and say that we have done a lot together in this country. Through initiatives like this, with the leadership we're getting from some provincial and federal politicians from all parties - this is the way to go for the future. Let's talk about the future, and let's not let the past be the prologue to our future. Sorry about that lecture, but we're really serious about this.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: Let's suppose that sometime down the road Canada is made an economic and trade partnership offer by a Quebec that had become sovereign in the previous few months. In the same spirit of full trade and economic co-operation, would you make a commitment to give the same information to the people in all the other Canadian provinces and tell them how close are the ties that bind the two economies?

You could always claim it stems from the benefits of the federal structure, but the federal structure is political. It's not a trade and economic structure. You can always have another political structure managing the same trade relations. The Canadian population might have to decide on that in the coming years. It seems to me your organization is very well set up to explain all the trade implications at stake to the Canadian population.

[English]

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I realize that we may be straying.

The Chairman: I think it's a great loaded question. I'd advise you to hit it out of the park.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: Participate, participate.

Mr. Reid: I heard you loud and clear.

.1150

[English]

Mr. Chairman, I would love to come back to the committee sometime in the next three months to answer that question in more detail. I'm here as a porte-parole. I'm the spokesperson. I don't make policy; I speak about the policy of our members.

The work that we've done in the last year is to combat ignorance. We call it the evil of ignorance in this country. We went back and looked at the Macdonald commission report of 1985. We can disagree politically in this country - as a business association, that's not our job - but the facts are unequivocal that the federal structure in Canada has enabled us to be one of the most competitive countries in the world.

We've been hindered by the lack of internal trade and investment liberalization, by a view that's been outstripped in the rest of the world. Our point is that we have a federal structure that's worked in terms of creating jobs across this country, but we have to do more. We have to reach out. We're saying let's build upon that. It's worked. Let's reform it. That's the position of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

We will continue to bring out the facts on the advantages of doing business. We are working very closely with this government on the Team Canada trip to India and other countries, because we believe that is the wave of the future. That is the way to create jobs in this country - not by splitting up the country.

The Chairman: If I may encourage you in that line of thought, there's nothing in the empirical evidence that would suggest it would be easier to achieve these goals if Quebec were a separate country.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I will answer a hypothetical question.

The Chairman: Thank you for your intervention. It was fascinating and it took us deeper into the underlying themes of the future of Canada. We look forward to meeting with you again and perhaps hearing some answers to the questions that Mr. Rocheleau and I posed so rudely. When you're the porte-parole, you might come up with views that may help us with that.

I think we're prepared to move on to the clause-by-clause.

Committee members should have received a letter from Tom d'Aquino concerning the Business Council on National Issues' views on the bill. I would ask you to take that under advisement and let the record show that I have officially distributed it to you.

I'll ask officials from the Department of Industry to come forward, and we'll have a change of the guard at the table.

.1155

First of all, we'll let the officials introduce themselves. I think some are at the table and some are not. We've met some of these folks before because they were here to guide us through when we first met this bill.

Mr. von Finckenstein, why don't you introduce your team both at the table and elsewhere if they are spread about.

Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein (Assistant Deputy Minister, Business Law, Department of Justice): With me is John Licharson, senior adviser, internal trade for the Department of Industry. I'm Konrad von Finckenstein, assistant deputy minister, business law at Justice. One of my colleagues, Irving Miller, from the Department of Justice is also here.

The Chairman: He's the legal counsel.

Mr. von Finckenstein: Yes.

The Chairman: With me is Mr. Charles Bellemare. He and I have done this a few times before. He is here to assist us with the technicalities of clause-by-clause.

My understanding is that where we have things to think about and work to do beyond simply passing it...we have clauses 9, 14, 17, 18 and I think 19 where we have amendments and proposals from the Bloc. Clause 9 also has some suggestions from the minister himself, which we learned of when he appeared before us.

We have a technical problem with clause 19, and that is that Mr. Rocheleau

[Translation]

did, in all good faith, submit suggestions to the secretariat but, unfortunately, for easily understood reasons, we don't yet have an official version of the proposed amendment to clause 19.

Are we in for a nice surprise? Is it becoming less and less likely?

Mr. Charles Bellemare (Clerk of the Committee): Keep on hoping, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: I think we will proceed through the bill in the order in which we find it, pausing at the various stops at clauses 9, 14, 17 and and 18.

There is a slight chance - and I underline the word ``slight'' - that by the time we get to clause 19, the officials will pull a rabbit out of the hat and there will be some proper phrasing for us to consider. If that isn't the case, the committee will have to make a choice between asking Monsieur Rocheleau if he would mind deferring that discussion until report stage in the House or, alternatively, deferring our completing work on the bill until the officials come in with their text.

.1200

So we have two choices when we get to clause 19. Let us hope we have text, which will mean that we will have eliminated one of the choices.

With that background, we should move on to the order of consideration. We're postponing clause 1, which is really the short title. We'll come to that at the end. Pursuant to Standing Order 75, that's been postponed.

Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to

On clause 9 - Orders

The Chairman: We have two sets of amendments.

First of all, in terms of the batting order, what makes the most sense?

Mr. Bellemare: Normally it's done in order of lines, Mr. Chairman. That would bring the Bloc amendment up first.

The Chairman: All right. The amendment the Bloc wishes to produce is the first to be considered and it is before you in the package from Mr. Rocheleau.

It is that clause 9 be amended by replacing line 5 on page 3 with the following:

In other words, this wouldn't come into operation unless it was proposed by the committee on internal trade itself as opposed to the Governor in Council alone doing it. That is the distinction between what the words currently are and the modification proposed by Monsieur Rocheleau.

Monsieur Rocheleau is proposing that as an amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: This is an amendment we'll be finding in other clauses and it represents the view of the Bloc Québécois, the Official Opposition, on the role of our committees. We'd like the executive arm from now on to delegate more powers to the legislative arm, more particularly in the area of the role the committees might play. The effect of adopting this kind of amendment would be to reinforce considerably the role of the committees tackling this kind of problem. That's the spirit of our amendment.

Should I read it?

The Chairman: Should it be read out for the official record or... Go ahead Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Rocheleau: In that case, I move that Bill C-88, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 5, on page 3, with the following:

That determines the moment when the committee could intervene in that kind of situation.

[English]

The Chairman: Debate or comment?

Mr. Valeri (Lincoln): Mr. Chairman, effectively the amendment proposed would change the actual agreement. The bill itself, C-88, is intended to facilitate that agreement, which was achieved through consensus by the partners in that agreement. In fact, it proposes that the government notify the committee of ministers. We don't require previous approval to do that. It would be changing the agreement. We really can't support a change in the agreement that was achieved through consensus by the partners in the agreement, the Province of Quebec being one of those partners.

.1205

Ms Brown (Oakville - Milton): Mr. Chairman, I'm against the amendment because all the testimony we have heard so far seems to me, with the exception of the truckers from Quebec, to suggest the general public, the commercial public, is dissatisfied with the slowness of the development of the agreement and the conclusion of it, that is, to do with the excluded items.

It seems to me their message to us is that this whole breaking down of the barriers to internal trade has to be accomplished with more speed. I see this amendment as injecting another step in the process. In other words, it's saying only on the recommendation of the council. The council isn't set up, but the players who will form the council took a long time even to develop what the public is seeing as a very tentative, preliminary step towards the breaking down of those barriers.

I don't think it's incumbent upon us to put into the process something that will literally slow it down. In fact, I think the public wants us to enable the minister to move with alacrity and to do what he thinks needs to be done. I'm sure he wouldn't do anything without checking with the council. On the other hand, if he waits for their recommendations, it could slow him down when maybe the courses would be very clear to him if some problem arises.

I don't want to tie his hands by this other step. So I'll be voting against this amendment.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: Let's not forget that this isn't a question that concerns only Quebec. It has no bearing on the federal-provincial relation and has more to do with enhancing the members' role. We know that the influence of MPs in the House of Commons is only so-so and we have to be conscious of the problem. We won't be getting into this debate for each amendment.

There is a problem with British parliamentary system as to the role of the elected representatives - they're directly elected by the population - and the sharing of responsibilities between the executive and the legislative sides. That's what we're talking about here and the Bloc Québécois is taking advantage of its presence in Ottawa to come down in favour of enhancing the role of members. We're elected directly by the people and we must defend their interests. As the executive side is more heavily influenced by the technocrats who are unplugged from reality, maybe it's a bit more pressing than we'd like to admit. That doesn't seem to bother the people across the floor. We should be holding an urgent debate on the enhancement of the members' role.

[English]

Ms Brown: I know that.

The Chairman: Mr. von Finckenstein, would you like to speak on behalf of disconnected technocrats?

Mr. von Finckenstein: Mr. Chairman, maybe it would help if I put this in context. The committee of ministers on internal trade works by consensus. In this instance, a panel will have found there is a party that discriminates or that is acting in contravention of the internal trade agreement. That finding has been made, a year has passed, and no measures to implement change have been taken. So this violation continues. At that point the committee is informed that suspension of benefits, or retaliation, will occur.

When we negotiated this, we specifically did not put in something along the proposed amendment because you would actually ask the party who is the violator to vote for a penalty against itself, which is highly unlikely to happen. Therefore, the agreement provides for you to inform them so the other parties with agreement can interact and put pressure on the party to conform. It would not be required that there be previous approval by the committee of ministers.

The Chairman: Of course, Quebec was a signatory to that agreement and to that arrangement.

Mr. von Finckenstein: Absolutely.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: Aside from the technocrats, there are also the lobbyists who can influence the government's decisions even more than members of Parliament.

.1210

[English]

The Chairman: I certainly hope not.

[Translation]

Any other comments before we vote?

[English]

Amendment negatived on division

The Chairman: Now we move to the minister's amendment. I guess Mr. Valeri will move that. There are two parts to move, aren't there? Shall we do one at a time? Let's do the first part, lines 9 to 16.

Mr. Valeri: Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 9 of Bill C-88 be amended by striking out lines 9 to 16 on page 3 and substituting the following:

The Chairman: Is there a question or debate on the amendment?

Ms Bethel: It would perhaps be in order, Mr. Chairman, to have the department suggest the rationale.

The Chairman: To remind us why we're doing this.

Mr. von Finckenstein: Mr. Chairman, the effect of the amendment, if you look at clause 9 of the bill, is to take out paragraphs (c) and (d). Therefore, clause 9 as amended, if this amendment carries, would end after paragraph (b). It was felt that paragraphs (c) and (d), which are traditional in international law in acts implementing international trade law agreements, are not required in a domestic content.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions or debate on the point?

Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. Harper: Opposed on division.

The Chairman: I don't think he has to offer any rationale. Do you? If you'd like to, go ahead.

Mr. Harper: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I'm new to the committee. I'm filling in for the two workhorses who are normally here. Actually they have asked - and I erred in the first clauses - that I oppose on division all the clauses so they'll have the ability to have some input. That's on what we have dealt with so far. We will be opposing on division all clauses and amendments.

The Chairman: May I ask the indulgence of the committee members, because we obviously want to help our colleague who has joined us here. Would it be correct for us to rewrite history a little and say we will choose to understand everything we have done to date to be on division and I shall say on division as we carry on from here? Is it all right if we rewrite history a little here? I don't know how we want to deal with amendments. Is that going to help you?

Mr. Harper: I appreciate that.

The Chairman: Will you be doing this for the amendments too?

Mr. Harper: Yes, I will, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: That's fine as long as I keep remembering that.

Amendment agreed to on division

The Chairman: Then we move to the second of the amendments put forward by the minister, which is confusingly known as 009-003.22a, and that's not an Internet address.

Mr. Valeri: I move that clause 9 of Bill C-88 be amended by adding immediately after line 22, on page 3, the following:

The Chairman: That's helpful. I'm anticipating Ms Bethel.

Mr. Valeri: For greater clarity.

The Chairman: I would ask Mr. von Finckenstein to put this into English - or French.

.1215

Mr. von Finckenstein: Clause 9 says that any retaliatory measures are to be taken ``pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement''. This means you have to follow the whole procedure set out in 1710. However, when this bill was first introduced there was some question as to what 1710 actually imposes. For greater clarity, subclause 9(3) therefore points out that you have to first of all qualify under 1704(8), which means the federal government can only take up a case if there is discrimination against a federally incorporated, regulated company or entity. If it's anything else, the federal government can't step in. It is not the policeman of this agreement. It can only act when somebody is a victim by virtue of their federal status or its federal regulation.

Secondly, if it does win before the panel and there's no implementation - the recalcitrant province does not comply with the panel reports - it can then indeed take retaliatory measures or suspend benefits, but those are very much limited by the provisions of 1710. Article 1710(3) provides that you first of all have to go to the committee to notify it. Article 1704 provides that you have to do it in the same sector, and only if you cannot do it in the same sector can you do it outside the sector, but it has to be something that's covered under the agreement.

Finally, 1710(10) reminds a person that this is all subject to the Constitution of Canada, and in no way can you do anything that would violate the Constitution of Canada

The Chairman: You wouldn't want to do that.

That's very helpful. I think I understand, but maybe....

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: As for the concerns we had, and made known to the Minister when he appeared - our questions made him rather uncomfortable - as you're the technician behind this whole thing, I'd like you to tell us if the federal government will be able to do something only when it is considered to be the aggrieved party or if it will be able to take any steps in the name of an aggrieved party.

[English]

Mr. von Finckenstein: The federal government will take cases up on behalf of others. That's what I pointed out in 1704(8), and that is if there is actually somebody harmed to benefit. If there's a question of not agreeing to the agreement - i.e., no person has been harmed - yet there is a provision here under the agreement that the parties will do something but they don't do it, then such issues can also be referred to the committee. This is a consensual agreement between parties, and I expect parties will live up to their commitments whatever they are, such as paying their fees for the secretariat, such as appointing members, etc.

There are two types of disputes. It will primarily be done on behalf of somebody who has been discriminated against by virtue of federal status or federal regulatory regime. There's also always a possibility that if there's a dispute between the parties in terms of the agreement as such, questions may arise about what we have actually negotiated: What does this mean? They can also take that to a panel and have the panel advise them as to what they agreed to, what the actual wording of the agreement means.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Any more questions?

Mr. Rocheleau: It's very technical.

[English]

The Chairman: At the risk of muddying the waters, if a private company wishes to get involved in the dispute mechanism, do they in effect need a government sponsor, or can they proceed without somebody saying, yes, we're behind you on this?

Mr. von Finckenstein: The agreement envisions that you first go to your host province and ask it to take up your cause for you. Or if you happen to be discriminated against by virtue of your federal status, you go to the federal government.

If that government - in most cases it will be the host government - refuses to do so, under the agreement the aggrieved private party can then say they want to take it up by themselves anyway, but they have to pass through something that's called a screening test. They have to appear before somebody who has to certify that this is not a vexatious complaint.

.1220

If the screener says this is not vexatious, the private party can then proceed by himself against the offending province, or against the offending federal government for that matter, and go to a panel. At the end of the process, he effectively gets a declaratory judgment from the panel, which says that this government has offended the internal trade agreement.

That's the end of the road. There's no way that a private party can compel the government to do anything or can get damages or anything. The private party can only get the publicity of the negative finding.

The Chairman: That's very interesting.

Are there any other questions, comments or debate?

Ms Brown.

Ms Brown: This edition is limiting.... In a sense it completely explains to me why we had to take out paragraphs (c) and (d) of the first part. It's literally the opposite. So we take those two out, we add this, and we have something that essentially weakens the power of the federal government in dealing with these cases. If indeed it's a reflection of the agreement, we have to have it that way because we can't change the agreement.

The Chairman: Are there any comments on that?

Mr. von Finckenstein.

Mr. von Finckenstein: No. As the amendment says, it is for greater certainty. It just spells out what is already in the agreement, and by virtue of the bill the government is allowed to proceed only in accordance with its specific agreement. It does not in any way limit it. It just spells it out for greater clarity.

The Chairman: There is no other internal reference in clause 9 to anything other than article 1710; therefore, you might forget, so to speak, that you have to go through article 1704(8) before you get there.

Mr. von Finckenstein: It's been pointed out to me that I didn't totally answer Mr. Rocheleau's question. You also wanted to know whether a third party into a panel proceeding could retaliate or suspend benefits. The answer is no. It's only the aggrieved province that takes the matter forward.

Another province can participate in the panel process and add its views, but it cannot do anything towards the enforcement. That can only be done by the ``complaining province'', as it's called in the agreement.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: I'm happy to hear that question. If there were litigation between Manitoba and Saskatchewan and Manitoba was found to be at fault by the relevant body, could the federal government intervene on the part of the aggrieved province against the party at fault? That's one of the gray zones we've identified. We didn't know how far it might go. It's in the interest of all to have a specific answer.

[English]

The Chairman: Where are we looking?

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: It's clause 1410.

[English]

Mr. von Finckenstein: In your example, Mr. Rocheleau, the federal government could intervene as an interested third party only if it could prove that it had a substantial interest in the dispute. A substantial interest would be that it maintains a measure that's analogous to the one at issue.

So if it feels that this dispute deals with something that would set a precedent and would also apply to certain measures that the federal government presently has, it could intervene. Unless it can make that case, it cannot intervene as a third party in your example in the dispute between Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

The Chairman: Are there other questions and comments?

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 9 as amended agreed to on division

.1225

Clauses 10 to 13 inclusive agreed to on division

On clause 14 - Appointments

The Chairman: The next amendment is from Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau may be moving an amendment to clause 14. Go ahead.

Mr. Rocheleau: I move that bill C-88, in clause 14 be amended by

Instead of proceeding by decree, we're simply suggesting that the government appoint according to the rules in the Public Service Employment Act.

The Chairman: Shall we look at the amendment paragraph by paragraph? Continue with (b), please.

Mr. Rocheleau: Yes.

(b) adding the following immediately after line 5,

The Chairman: Could you speak a little to the scope of your amendment?

Mr. Rocheleau: The second part follows from what was said before. The object is still to recognize that the Standing Committee on Industry that examines questions concerning trade is a part and parcel of the process. Here, more specifically, we're saying that appointments should be made pursuant to the Public Service Employment Act rather than simply decreed.

[English]

Mr. Valeri: The first part of this amendment says ``pursuant to the Public Service Employment Act''. Some persons appointed may not be public servants, so I can't support the first part of that amendment. The second part actually restricts the ability of governments to implement the agreement if the persons carrying out the agreement need the approval of the committee. It delays or holds up the implementation of the agreement. I think amendments like this are dealing more with the parliamentary process and how we do things in Parliament, rather than this specific agreement. So the government can't support this particular amendment.

The Chairman: All right. Are there other comments or observations? As you say, it would have to do with the entire review of Order in Council appointments, and this would be establishing a precedent.

Ms Brown: I agree with the previous speaker. I will be voting against this amendment because first, it limits the choice of the minister as to whom he might wish to put in any particular position, and second, it requires the standing committee to approve these appointments. We already get enough things to approve, and it's a set of names of people we don't know. I think it becomes meaningless.

The minister makes important appointments that should come to the committee, but these appointments do not fall in that group as far as I'm concerned.

The Chairman: All right.

Are there any other comments, questions or observations?

Amendment negatived on division

Clause 14 to 16 inclusive agreed to on division

On clause 17

.1230

The Chairman: We have Mr. Rocheleau's next amendment.

[Translation]

I would ask you to read your amendment.

Mr. Rocheleau: I move that Bill C-88, in clause 17, be amended by adding after line 15, on page 5, the following:

The Chairman: I think it's just about self-explanatory...

Mr. Rocheleau: It's a matter of concordance.

The Chairman: Yes, in the same direction...

Mr. Rocheleau: You know how consistent we are, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Valeri: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have the officials speak to this.

The Chairman: Fine.

Mr. von Finckenstein: Mr. Chairman, this amendment to the Interest Act, triggered by the agreement that has a provision dealing with the cost of credit disclosure....

The section found in annex 807.1, section 10 says:

At issue here are the provisions of the Interest Act that set a default rate of interest if the written contract does not provide what the interest rate would be.

As a result of these negotiations the parties will determine that the default rate of interest on any loan shall be whatever it is, let's say, 5% cumulative, compounded quarterly, or whatever they agree upon.

That will then be the standard for all loans in Canada, where the loan itself does not specify the interest rate or the mortgage.

I believe the first provision actually deals with mortgages; the second one deals with loans.

We are amending it here to give the federal government, by regulations, the power to put in the solution the provinces will agree to.

The provinces are negotiating right now. They will agree among themselves that the uniform rate for this type of mortgage shall be whatever it is, and we will then pass a regulation to implement that.

They cannot do it by themselves since this is federal jurisdiction; we have to put it in the Interest Act.

Adopting the provision put forward by Mr. Rocheleau would mean that the provinces have agreed to it. It will have to be considered by a House of Commons committee before the government can implement what it has contractually undertaken to do.

The Chairman: That's helpful.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Amendment negatived on division

Clause 17 agreed to on division

On clause 18

The Chairman: Now we move to the penultimate of Mr. Rocheleau's amendments, the last one for which we have documentation.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau, would you read out your amendment to clause 18?

Mr. Rocheleau: I move that Bill C-88, in clause 18, be amended by adding after line 36, on page 5, the following.

The same logic applies as before.

[English]

Mr. O'Reilly (Victoria - Haliburton): Is it the same as this one, mortgage or loans? Which? One's dealing with one, and one's dealing with the other.

Mr. Valeri: The same argument would hold for this particular amendment.

The Chairman: Are there any other thoughts or comments on this? The logic of both arguments for and against applies to both sections.

Any comments or questions on this?

Amendment negatived on division

Clause 18 agreed to on division

.1235

The Chairman: Now we come to a sticky moment, which is that je ne vois pas nos amis.

As I indicated earlier, the difficulty we have, which is not of Mr. Rocheleau's making.... I'm not laying blame. I'm going to blame the electrical power failure because it can't defend itself. What the heck, it seems to be capable of doing everything.

We don't have text that would be the equivalent of what you have before us. This is clause 19, which is the.... Remember we had les camionneurs artisans, etc.

As a committee we have to come to a collective decision as to whether we.... We have to ask our colleague what he would like. Our choices seem to be either to delay our work here until the officials appear, or conversely, to allow this section to go through on division on the understanding thatMr. Rocheleau would have the opportunity in the report stage to put forward in the correct form the amendment we do not have before us.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau, I don't know...

Mr. Rocheleau: That's more like it. We could bring in our amendment at the report stage but I'd like to explain the problem to the committee.

For those who have a copy of the agreement, you should turn to page 155, clause 1410, to see what clause 19 is all about. Clause 19 reads as follows:

So if you go to page 148 of the English version of the agreement, clause 1410 "Listed Measures" reads as follows:

When you get to Quebec, in Annex 1410.1, what we have on pages 155 and 156 are the Transport Act, the regulations respecting bulk trucking and the regulations respecting foreign carriers.

In the same vein, the government of Canada said that part I of the 1987 Motor Vehicle Transport Act should not be affected, and on page 158 in the chapter on the phase out of non-conforming measures, it says that the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, could be phased out.

It's complex and rather technical. What you should remember, and I'd like to get the opinion of the deputy minister at some point, is that Canadian legislation, concerning Quebec, says that road carriers engaged in interprovincial transport must conform to provincial legislation. When it applies, they'll have to respect it.

If, as is the case in clause 19, it says that Part III of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act of 1987 is repealed, then we consider that means Canadian and Quebec carriers no longer have the obligation to conform to Quebec legislation in the area of bulk goods. That's why we proposed an amendment this morning and we want to debate it later.

I don't know if that's sufficient clarification for you. I'd like to hear the deputy minister tell us what the difference is between Part I of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act mentioned on page 166 and Part III mentioned on page 168. So Part III should be progressively eliminated. That's what we have in clause 19 of Bill C-88.

.1240

What's the difference between the two?

The Chairman: That's where we're at.

Mr. Rocheleau: Perhaps some clarification...

The Chairman: It's just to explain the situation. You have to understand that there'll be more extensive debate later on but if you can briefly summarize a very complex problem...

Mr. von Finckenstein.

[English]

Mr. von Finckenstein: I agree it's not an easy issue. Let me try to simplify it as much as I can. Annex 1411 lists the measures each party has agreed we will liberalize or remove.

On page 159 in annex 1411 under ``Canada,'' it says ``Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987...Part III'' will be liberalized or removed by January 1, 1998.

In this clause 19 the federal government gives itself the power to repeal part III of that act. It will do so on January 1, 1998.

That's our intention, and that's how it was negotiated. We are now in effect seeking authority from Parliament to so repeal it. That will undoubtedly have an effect on the Quebec actsMr. Rocheleau referred to, which are listed in annex 1410 as being protected.

This will not take place immediately. It will take place in two years. Presumably when this was negotiated.... I was not party to the transport negotiations, so I can't speak to it.

That's why there is a two-year waiting period. The two years allow the Government of Quebec to take whatever necessary measures there are to alleviate or soften the blow that will result from the repeal of part III of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act.

The Chairman: Thank you for helping us with that. It's a complex issue, and it will be more fully discussed at report stage.

[Translation]

Is that enough for a general discussion?

Mr. Rocheleau: Yes. Do you get the point, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: I get the point and I'm sorry we don't have the documents in front of us.

[English]

Shall clause 19 carry on division?

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: I'd like a recorded vote on clause 19.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll have a roll call vote to help out Mr. Rocheleau. On this particular clause he wishes to be recorded by name as being against it, so we're introducing a roll call.

Clause 19 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 20 agreed to on division

Clause 1 agreed to on division

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Chairman: Shall the bill as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

Mr. Valeri: Did you call for a vote on the preamble itself? I don't recall whether you did or not.

.1245

The Chairman: There is a preamble. Thank you.

Shall the preamble carry on division?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the bill as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Chairman: I think we've done that twice, but you can't pass a good bill too often, in my view.

The suggestion from our helpers here is that we need not actually order a reprint given that we haven't completely totalled the bill. It would be comprehensible with the amendments.

Shall we order a reprint?

Some hon. members: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: Objective attained.

[English]

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: I think that's it.

If there is no other business, I thank everyone here, both those from the department and the legal parties, for having guided us through this.

I declare the session adjourned.

;