A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
There was such an aggressive negative response to the action of the cable companies that a Liberal member came to this House with Bill C-216 which called for the outlawing of negative option billing. There was close to unanimous support at the time of the vote for second reading. The vote was 147 to 25.
The members of this House were very solidly in favour of that bill. However it seems as though the Liberals and particularly the heritage department woke up to something which was in the bill
that they did not really like so they decided they were going to work, as it were, against the will of the people who had voted in favour of that.
The list of the lobbyists who worked on opposing the bill reads like a who's who in the Liberal Party: the former minister of communications Francis Fox; Liberal strategist Michael Wilson; former CRTC guru André Bureau and many more all worked over the Liberals.
In an article in the Toronto Star one Liberal MP spoke on condition of anonymity saying that the minister was responsible for the last minute panic by the government because she did not do her homework: ``If you want to kill an irritant you have got to do something at the beginning,'' the MP said. This is sloppy work on the part of the minister, her department and her parliamentary secretary who I think might be answering this question.
There was a concerted Liberal effort, particularly on the part of the department to work against the people of Canada with respect to this bill, namely the outlawing of negative option billing.
At the time of the vote, the minister insisted that the government ``supported the spirit of the legislation''. Interestingly, she was not here but the vote. But the vote nonetheless went ahead, 84 to 68.
(1925)
With this reality check, I have a copy of a letter from the Consumers' Association of Canada to the minister: ``We are writing on behalf of Canadian consumers to ask you to send a clear public signal that you support Bill C-216''.
The minister has tried to have it both ways in saying that she is in favour of banning negative option billing, trying to imply that she is in favour of Bill C-216. The question is very simple and very straightforward. Are the minister and her department in favour of the passage of Bill C-216 into law, yes or no?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must use this opportunity to congratulate you on your new position. I wish you well.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the hon. member for Kootenay East. As members know since it has been outlined in the House before, consumers across the country have spoken loud and clear on this issue. They do not want negative option billing.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has also spoken loud and clear on this issue in her response to the question raised by the hon. member on September 25: ``The government opposed negative option billing last year. It opposed negative option billing this year and it will oppose negative option billing next year''. The minister repeated this answer again on September 27. That is pretty clear.
[Translation]
As the hon. member knows full well, the bill is currently before the other place. It is now up to our colleagues there to review it. They have started debating it, several senators have expressed their views on the matter and more will speak as the debate continues. I would therefore suggest to my hon. colleague that we let our colleagues in the other place do their job.
[English]
I am glad to say that it is in the Senate. It is going to receive due consideration in the Senate and we should allow it to do its work.
There are a number of differences between the proposed act and the existing legislation. For example, the process contained in Bill C-38 would be available only to insolvent farmers rather than also to farmers in financial difficulty as is currently the case under section 16 of the Farm Debt Review Act.
Some farmers experience financial difficulty from time to time. Can we be assured that the proposed new farm consultation service, FCS, will be as effective if not legislated? My other concern, if there should be a further program review and cuts, is that FCS could be more easily eliminated since it is not legislated. In my view it is vital that FDMA and FCS serve as parallel approaches.
It is very important that consultation continue to be a part of any legislative package. There is generally a degree of momentum created whenever consultation is part of the process.
Farmers need help before insolvency. They need a proactive approach through consultation. In my opinion Bill C-38 may be seen by insolvent farmers as a graceful exit in resolving the problem at hand. I believe farmers want to see continued consultation, and creditors certainly understand the process. This process enables farmers to address their financial concerns and perhaps may enable them to continue farming.
As I understand it from the agriculture committee meetings, Ontario producers want to ensure that there will be enough flexibility to make this program work, which should not be too difficult. The proposed act states there should be one mediator per case. Should the mediator require further expert assistance for more complicated cases, this assistance would be given.
If we are to realize our goals of being more cost efficient and effective, it is vital that we educate the public on the available services within Bill C-38.
We must also address a concern regarding appeal boards and mediators. Can they be regarded as one and the same? If, for example, there is some concern regarding a possible conflict of interest, I can see no problem with having the person replaced on that particular case.
In mediation there is a constant flow of information and knowledge of the various issues that play in a particular case, simply because it involves a hands on process. However, I am concerned that when a case reaches the appeal board we may lose the same flow of information.
Finally, I would like to express a concern regarding the process whereby current board members would be replaced by a pool of mediators, a process which might take until the end of 1997 to complete. I understand that the standards have already been drafted and a number of training sessions have already taken place.
While board members who fully meet the requirements will have the opportunity to be considered for the mediation contracts under the new act, perhaps during this transition period and for the sake of consistency it might be advisable to consider appointing the first set of mediators for a set period of time, perhaps for a three year term.
While I applaud the intent of the proposed legislation to create a mediation process that is complete, concise and cost effective, I would propose that in order to do so we must address the shortcomings I have pointed out. The process must be peer oriented. I believe we must ensure that FCS and FDMA are both seen as a parallel approach, each serving as a vital service for Canada's farmers.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question brought forth on the Farm Debt Mediation Act.
The new act strengthens the entire farm debt review process by embedding mediation in the legislation and by providing enhanced services. The new act will continue to provide a stay of proceedings, financial review and mediation, but it will now also give farmers and creditors access to an appeal board. The financial review for insolvent farmers has been enhanced to allow farmers to use their own financial advisors or experts to develop a recovery plan.
Another major improvement to the act is that insolvent farmers will be able to apply for a financial review and mediation without having to apply for a stay of proceedings. Under the ten year old act insolvent farmers who did not want to alert their creditors by applying for a stay of proceedings applied under section 16 of the act, which was originally designed for farmers in financial difficulty but was used more often by insolvent farmers. The act is definitely an improvement in these services.
On the cost side, economies have been realized by eliminating from legislation the three person panel. Therefore we have been able to reduce by two people the number of people involved in most cases.
Over the past 18 months the administrative structure for the Farm Debt Review Act has been streamlined and the number of offices and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada staff has been reduced. Under the new Farm Debt Mediation Act, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada will be able to continue to streamline the delivery structure.
Last year just over 1,000 applications were received and the cost for the farm debt review boards was approximately $3.5 million. Applications under the new act could be in the range of 650 to 700 per year and expenditures are projected at approximately $2.2 million. The cost per case would therefore be reduced and services have been improved.
We are also going to implement a companion program to the act, the farm consultation service, which is not under legislation. The new farm consultation service provides earlier opportunities for most farmers to pre-empt potential financial difficulty. The cost for the farm consultation service will be approximately $1.8 million and will help 1,500 farmers.
The net effect is more mediation and consultation services, covering a broader range of farming operations, helping a great many more farmers at costs comparable to last year.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.34 p.m.)