December 14, 1987

NDP

Leslie Gordon Benjamin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Benjamin:

This is a time to give them the tools on equalizing transportation costs in order that those who are furthest away can get their product to market in central Canada, in the United States, or other parts of the world with some semblance of an equal opportunity and equal competition.

I remember that in 1969 Members of Parliament from northern Canada were citing how, because of transportation costs alone, they had to compete with freshwater fishermen in southern Ontario, southern Quebec and the northern United

December 14, 1987

States who were already catching fish right next door to the big markets. If the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation does nothing else but pool those costs for the benefit of all freshwater fishermen, it would be doing a great service to those fishermen in northern Canada, northern Ontario and western Canada.

Of course we need more fishermen's co-operatives. What they should be doing in their co-operatives is pooling their individual resources and with financial support from their local communities, credit unions, banks, or whatever, to purchase things like boats, motors, nets, and insurance. There is a host of other things which could be pooled in a co-operative which would reduce their costs and provide them with a better return on their catches. To expect individual fishermen or small individual co-operatives to move into the big leagues of the international markets is to be totally unfair to them and can have no other result than to lower prices.

We had examples in 1969 and 1970 of fishermen getting two cents or three cents per pound in the territories, ten cents or fifteen cents per pound in Manitoba, and twenty cents per pound in northern Ontario. Why was this? It was because they were closer to the markets and had better transportation facilities. We have been through this once before. If my hon. friend cannot learn from some recent history, he will be condemned to trying to repeat it, which is exactly what he is trying to do now.

We must have stronger central marketing of primary products such as grain and grain products and fish and fish products. Primary producers, whether they are grain farmers or fishermen, have never been price makers. They have never been allowed to set a price related to their costs of production or to their geographic location. They have always been price takers. What happens is that buyers, in particular international buyers, play one area of the country against another. They will get fishermen in the Northwest Territories trying to underbid the ones in Manitoba or northern Saskatchewan. Fishermen have been through that before, and those who have been in the freshwater fishing industry for a while know what it was like then and do not want it to happen again.

If there are problems regarding certain species or certain lakes, they should be solved by the fishermen themselves meeting with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Advisory Board and with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation where they can be resolved. If the corporation needs funding on a pay-back basis over a period of years at a preferred interest rate, let us give it so that it can do an even bigger and better job.

Let us look at the annual reports for the last five years which contain some of the things the hon. gentleman is complaining about. We see that 1987 was the best year they ever had. Initial payments and the final payments totalled $48.3 million. If my memory serves me right about catch in

Freshwater Fish Marketing Act

the annual report, it works out to about $1 per pound or whatever. In any case, it was the best year ever. All I can say to my hon. friend is: "If it is working, don't try to fix it". He does not need to throw out the baby with the bath water. He should be moving amendments to strengthen the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation so that it can do an even better job for all fishermen in the area which the legislation covers.

I am getting a little tired of seeing the true colour of the Tories. I am not sure whether my hon. friend even knows what supply side economics is, but let me put it to him this way. According to his theory in this legislation, fishermen supply the fish and the market economics tells them how little they will get for it. That has been the problem with the so-called theory of supply side economics. Producers must band together and work co-operatively through their own agency. The agency is there for them and for no one else. We cannot say that it is overburdened with bureaucrats. It does not have a big staff. In fact, it should have half a dozen more people who do nothing but sell freshwater fish and processed fish. There should be more of them doing that in central Canada, in the United States, and in other countries of the world. They need more staff, not less. They do not need friends like my hon. friend from the territories. As far as I am concerned, his legislation means that he is not a friend of orderly marketing to get better income for fishermen. He is also against the best interests of freshwater fishermen generally. He has proven that with what is in his motion. I am appalled that he would try to do it a second time. He did not learn his lesson the first time.

I hope the Government can assure us that the motion will be defeated at second reading, or that it will die in committee where it deserves a totally unnatural death. If the Government cannot give us that assurance, I am sure that we can get enough people to keep it going until five o'clock. Then I hope we will not get to it again until October, 1999, because that is all the motion deserves. I hope my hon. friend will take another look at what he is trying to do and will talk with fishermen all over the North. We not only have good fishermen along our northern lakes and rivers of the prairie provinces, Ontario, and the territories. We have first-class fish. In fact, if you will pardon me, Mr. Speaker, we catch fish that size in northern Canada and the northern parts of the provinces, and that is between the eyes. There is no problem about the quality of fishermen or the size and quality of the fish. However, there is a problem with a few Hon. Members in this place and a handful of disgruntled fishermen. I do not think the hon. gentleman from the territories is doing much to help them with their problems. All he is trying to do is to make them worse.

If there are problems, they can be solved through the fishermen's agency because it belongs to them, not to the Government of Canada. It was set up by Parliament for the welfare, good order, and benefit of freshwater fishermen. It was long overdue. I suppose that every year or two a couple of hon. gentlemen will come into this place and try to wreck what it took decades to build up. Instead of bringing in Bills to

December 14, 1987

Freshwater Fish Marketing Act

improve and strengthen the legislation, they will try to bring in legislation to kill it, and that can only be to the detriment and loss of freshwater fishermen in our part of Canada.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
LIB

John V. Nunziata

Liberal

Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):

Mr. Speaker, I do not deny the Hon. Member the right to bring this legislation forward during Private Members' Hour. It is his right. It is his prerogative as an elected Member of the House to introduce legislation and to seek the approval of all Hon. Members to ensure passage of the Bill.

As I understand it, the net effect of Bill C-211 will be to gut the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. I do not purport to be an expert on the responsibilities and functions of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, but I want to take this opportunity to take the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to task for what might appear to some people to be a certain degree of hypocrisy. Let me explain why.

As the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) pointed out, the Minister, who was then a Member, one of many, a lowly back-bencher, made a speech on July 10, 1980. That is seven and a half years ago. What did he have to say? The Member for Richmond-South Delta, who is now the Minister of Fisheries, spoke about the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. If you bear with me for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I will quote a paragraph from his speech. It must have been a hot day, but he said:

I suggest what we have now is a system of monopolistic dominance in the fishmarketing industry, in the prairie provinces in particular, which is a far cry from what I understand to be the principle of democratic socialism where free enterprise and the private sector can co-operate in competition with one another. What we have is virtual communism in all of its forms in the example and illustration of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Complete monopoly powers are reflected in part III of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act to buy, sell, trade and engage in all handling of fish caught in freshwater areas of Canada. This monopolistic corporation comes complete with its mandarins and represents a significant drain on the public purse.

That is what the Minister said on July 10, 1980. You know that we in the Opposition are somewhat concerned about the Tory Members of Parliament who say one thing when it is convenient to say something on one side of an issue and then, at some later point in time, for whatever reason say another thing. We have documented Tory hypocrisy, if you will, over the last number of years. This is another example. The Minister said seven or eight years ago that this board consisted of mandarins and was virtually communistic. Now it appears that he has changed his mind. All of a sudden it is no longer communist. In fact, this corporation is so worthy of support that he is urging his colleagues to defeat a Private Members' Bill introduced by another Conservative Member of Parliament.

What caused the Member back in 1980 to refer to it as communism and today have a change of heart? We know that Mikhail Gorbechev was in Washington last week. We know that, together with Raisa Gorbechev, they were able to woo the

American people and woo the world. There was glasnost, treaties and East meeting West.

The Fisheries Minister did not indicate whether it was that that caused him to change his mind. Canadians have a right to expect their politicians to do as they say and not do things they say they are not going to do. Is it any wonder that people call into question the credibility and honesty of the Conservative Government when, on the one hand, it calls the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation communistic and then, when it is convenient, says what a great corporation it is.

We know how successful that corporation is. Maurice Blanchard from the Fisheries Advisory Committee said, "We strongly support the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and oppose Bill C-ll and any other moves that would weaken this organization. By any industry measure"-and I am quoting his letter of November 23, 1987-"the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is a success. It has shown steady growth and has just completed another year of record sales and record returns to the fishermen".

I will not go on about how the corporation was established by a Liberal Government, except to say that I appreciate the fact that the New Democratic Party has, in effect, through the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) applauded the previous Liberal administration for establishing the corporation.

One could go on about the New Democratic Party and how it applauds the previous Liberal administration when it is convenient, but when it is inconvenient the NDP is quick to criticize everything Liberal.

In the spirit of Christmas I will conclude my remarks and take this opportunity to wish you, Mr. Speaker, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and to say to Hon. Members opposite that, hopefully, their New Year's resolution will be not to be as hypocritical as they were in the past.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
NDP

William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie

New Democratic Party

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):

Mr. Speaker, I try as much as I can to erase in a way the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) from my memory, but he has done his usual bit.

With respect to the creation of this Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, I think the record will show that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) referred to the fact that its creation was supported by all four Parties in the House of Commons at the time. It was supported because it was generally regarded as something long overdue, probably something which the Liberal Government of the day should have done some years before, having finally done it. The fact remains that there was then and there is now a consensus as to the value of having this Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in existence.

I rise to speak because I have an interest in the Corporation. Its major processing plant is in my riding. I have had occasion

December 14, 1987

to visit it a number of time. I even worked there for a short time one summer way back.

It has been interesting to have the comments of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) made back in 1980 read into the record. Not only was that interesting but I do not know what the Hon. Member for York South-Weston was doing when he was admonishing him about being inconsistent. I am thankful that the Minister has changed his view and that he is not as stupid as he was in 1980. I am thankful that finally he seems to have grown a brain cell or two when it comes to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. The fact that the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) is still on the same level as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was in 1980 is something to be regretted. I hope that the difference between what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said in 1980 and what he says now is not hypocrisy but a sign of some development, education, a coming to appreciate reality. I hope that is the case.

Might I also say that it makes me nervous that we can still have Conservative back-benchers moving these kinds of Private Members' Bills. It makes me nervous because we are in the middle of a larger debate in this country right now which will start tomorrow concerning the free trade agreement.

A contentious issue in the free trade agreement has been the role of marketing boards and orderly marketing. It makes me nervous, and it should make all Canadians nervous who are attached to the principle and value of orderly marketing, whether it be the orderly marketing of grains through the Canadian Wheat Board or the orderly marketing of fish through the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board, that the Government, which assures them that the role of marketing boards is not at risk as the result of this free trade agreement, is a government that has in its caucus people like the Hon. Member for Western Arctic and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In 1980 he said that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board was an example of communism. That is part of the problem with the context in which reassurances are given by the Government with respect to how much it wants to protect orderly marketing in the free trade agreement.

We know that within the Conservative Party, there are long-standing enemies of orderly marketing. There are people over there who have always despised orderly marketing. Yet these are the people from whom we are supposed to accept reassurances that they have gone out of their way and done everything possible to protect orderly marketing in the free trade agreement.

We know full well that, at least on the public record, Members like the Hon. Member for Western Arctic are still trying to kill the principle of orderly marketing. There are many others who are perhaps not as-I do not know exactly what quality to ascribe to the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, but I will be polite and say, people who are not as

Freshwater Fish Marketing Act

persistent and up front about their beliefs but nevertheless are looking for every opportunity that presents itself to erode one of the fundamentals of the Canadian economy, the principle of orderly marketing.

Enough said about that. We hope that we can dismiss this Bill this afternoon and move on to more important things in the hope that, after the next election, there will be a new Member of Parliament from Western Arctic who will have a much different attitude toward orderly marketing.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
LIB

David Charles Dingwall

Liberal

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to join in this debate in support of my colleagues who are in opposition to the private Member's Bill put forward by my colleague , the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). In entering this debate, I must underline what appears to be a very serious break within the Tory caucus in regard to this particular Private Member's Bill.

We have heard from a member of the Government in support of this agency and we have heard from Members on this side, but I find that the divisions across the way are very telling indeed. I heard my colleague from Newfoundland talk about some of the aspects of this agency. I heard my colleague from the New Democratic Party being very eloquent in support of change, talking about the substance of this particular Private Member's Motion, something that is quite unusual for him. I must underline that the divisions across the way, as telling as they are, leave many Members on all sides of the House with a very fishy taste when it comes to the intent of the motion.

In essence, the intent of the motion is to gut an agency which I believe has served Canadians rather well. There is no question that there could be improvements made to it. Opportunities for improvements are important to any piece of legislation passed by Parliament, but to suggest that gutting the effectiveness of this agency will in some way improve the situation is, I think, not in order at all.

On that note, I must say that I would be in opposition to the Hon. Member's motion.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
PC

Jack Wendele Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate that has gone on since five o'clock on Bill C-2I1 proposed by my hon. colleague from Western Arctic. The Hon. Member is proposing that the House amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act and refer his Bill to a legislative committee.

After hearing the comments from all sides of the House, I am appalled that Hon. Members would not allow this Bill to go to committee for study. First we heard from a member of the socialist Party, the NDP, who said that they will kill it in committee and it shall never come up again before 1999. Is that an open mind?

December 14, 1987

Freshwater Fish Marketing Act

I wish to speak in support of the motion because I think it is important that the Bill go to committee. I would like to outline why I think it should go to committee.

There are a number of freshwater fishermen in my riding along the Lesser Slave Lake area who depend on freshwater fish for their livelihoods. They give limited support to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board which is located in Winnipeg. I say that they give limited support to it because, until approximately two years ago, freshwater fishermen in northern Alberta could not market their fish outside northern Alberta. They could not take their fish to Edmonton and market it there. They could not sell it to retail outlets or processors in Calgary, they could only sell it in northern Alberta. That gave them a very limited market.

To get pickerel, which is in high demand, whitefish and trout to market in Calgary, the fishermen had to ship the fish first to Winnipeg, and then the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board would ship the order back to Edmonton or Calgary. Indeed, in some cases, the board even sent orders to Grande Prairie, which is 150 kilometres away from the area where the fish was caught.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
NDP

Leslie Gordon Benjamin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Benjamin:

So provide them with more facilities.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
PC

Jack Wendele Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Shields:

The fishermen of my area have indicated very strongly their support for the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board for many of the reasons pointed out by my hon. friend from the socialist Party. However, he has failed to express the dissatisfaction that exists, maybe not with the freshwater fishermen from Lake Winnipegosis or Lake Winnipeg, but clearly with fishermen in northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta and northern British Columbia. These fishermen do not have the same advantages as the freshwater fishermen in Manitoba.

My colleague interjected by asking, why should we not give them more facilities in the other parts of the province? I would agree with that, but how do we do that? Do we do that by saying that we will not even study this Bill? We all know that if the Bill goes to committee, we are capable of amending it. We are capable of addressing the concerns of the fishermen from Athabasca, Peace River, Atikameg, Fort Chipewyan, Lake Athabasca, Lesser Slave Lake and all of the little lakes in northern Alberta. Let us listen to what they have to say. I think they have some concerns that they perceive to be legitimate and there are ways that we can change the practices of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board by removing its monopoly or retaining its monopoly but adding other services.

Fishermen from the Lesser Slave Lake area, particularly those from the West End Fishery Co-op, have been able to secure solid markets that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board has not found in the past, even with its high paid salesmen who seek markets. The little freshwater fish co-op, called the West End Fishery Co-op, has found markets itself but has been denied access to those markets unless it they went through the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in

Winnipeg. That small group of fishermen have found markets in the United States on their own. They turned the information on these markets over to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board in Winnipeg in order to secure the markets. The Freshwater Fish Marketing Board has not, to date, secured those markets.

It seems to me that that is an indication of a complacent Crown corporation. The employees are not paid on the basis of expanding the market but only on the basis of their job descriptions. I am not denying for a moment that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board in Winnipeg has done a good job for the fishermen on Lake Winnipeg, Lake Winnipegosis, and the lakes in northern Manitoba. However, it does not adequately serve the fishermen in northern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan, northern British Columbia, or the Territories. I am sure it is not by design of the corporation, but I am sure the corporation would be the first to admit that it has problems trying to control the flow of fish.

1 am sure that there are an awful lot of people in this House who are prepared to vote against this legislation being referred to committee who do not understand the problems facing freshwater fishermen in Canada.

When I came to this House in 1980 one of the first things 1 tried to do-in which, I might add, I was successful-was to have freshwater fishermen included under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Until that time they were lumped in with the West Coast and East Coast fishermen, although their time of unemployment was absolutely counter to that of the East Coast and West Coast fishermen.

I want to give credit where credit is due. I took this problem to the then Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). We worked on the problem together and were able to accomplish something which was long overdue. Freshwater fishermen had for many years paid unemployment insurance premiums but could never avail themselves of the benefits of it.

I truly believe that this legislation should go to the committee for study. Let us learn from the fishermen in northern Alberta, northern British Columbia, and northern Saskatchewan the problems that they face.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
PC

Steve Eugene Paproski (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

I regret but the Hon. Member's time has expired. Is the House ready for the question?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
PC

Dave Nickerson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nickerson:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to exercise my right of reply under Standing Order 61(2).

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
PC

Steve Eugene Paproski (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

I will allow the Hon. Member to make his last speech, which will talk out the Bill.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
PC

Dave Nickerson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nickerson:

I understand, Sir, that before you recognize me, pursuant to Standing Order 61(2), to exercise the right of reply it is incumbent upon the Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 61(3), to give the necessary advice to the House in case

December 14, 1987

anyone else wishes to speak. If I were to start speaking now, I would close the debate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you, Sir, pursuant to that article, to give the necessary advice.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
PC

Steve Eugene Paproski (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

1 have no problem with that. The Hon. Member was not interrupted, therefore, he will be the last speaker the next time this Bill appears on the Order Paper.

The house provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PC

Douglas Grinslade Lewis (Minister of State (Government House Leader); Minister of State (Treasury Board))

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lewis:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that there have been discussions among the Parties. Tomorrow, as House business, the House will debate the following motion:

That this House endorse as being in the national interest the Canada-United States free trade agreement, the legal text of which was tabled in the House of Commons on Friday, December 1 1, 1987.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
LIB

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray (Official Opposition House Leader; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Gray (Windsor West):

Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm that, even though the usual 48 hours' notice has not been given for this motion, we are willing to give consent to have the debate on it start tomorrow. I want to make it clear that, while there is agreement that the debate start tomorrow, there is no agreement that it should finish in any precipitous or rushed manner.

We believe that the matter of the Government's trade agreement with the United States is so important that not only should there be a full opportunity for a reasoned and measured debate in this House, even more important, there should be full parliamentary hearings on the full and final text of the agreement to give Canadians in general, as well as parliamentarians, the opportunity to study and consider in depth and in detail the text of the agreement in question. They certainly did not have that opportunity during the committee hearings which were just completed.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we are giving our consent not to have the usual 48 hours' notice to begin the debate, but that it is as far as our consent goes with regard to this matter.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
NDP

Rodney Edward Murphy (Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Murphy:

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus I would like to indicate our support for having the debate begin tomorrow. However, I would also indicate that we believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should have kept his promise to the people of Canada. On October 5 he said that the final document would go to a committee of this House. That will obviously not happen. We consider that yet another broken promise of the Prime Minister.

Customs Tariff

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

CUSTOMS TARIFF


The House resumed from Friday, December 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.


PC

Steve Eugene Paproski (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion for third reading of Bill C-87. Call in the Members.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink

December 14, 1987