36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 195
CONTENTS
Friday, March 12, 1999
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-55. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1005
1010
1015
1020
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1025
1030
1035
1040
1045
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLAND
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHRIS FULL
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1100
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEARNING DISABILITIES AWARENESS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL KIDNEY MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réginald Bélair |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENDANGERED SPECIES
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1105
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CAMILLE LAURIN
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL POLICY
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BIG BROTHERS AND BIG SISTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1110
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE UNITED ALTERNATIVE
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CAMILLE LAURIN
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANGELO MOSCA
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1115
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1120
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CULTURAL DIVERSITY
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1125
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1130
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE JUDICIARY
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1135
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1140
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
1145
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREST INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SWISSAIR FLIGHT 111
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
1150
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENDANGERED SPECIES
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derek Lee |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1155
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIGHWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SWISSAIR FLIGHT 111
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1200
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1205
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Sexual Offenders
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
1210
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Globalization
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Parliament Hill
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1215
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
1220
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-55. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1225
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1230
1235
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
1300
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
1305
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1310
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
1315
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMPETITION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-393. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1330
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1335
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
1350
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1355
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1400
1405
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1410
1415
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 195
![](/web/20061116184714im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 12, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services
supplied by foreign periodical publishers, be read the third time
and passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, only a few moments ago in this House we
prayed for guidance in our deliberations. There is probably no
better place where that guidance should be applied than in the
government's law on magazine publications.
This is a critical decision for future generations and the vote
which we will undertake in a couple of days will really chart a
path for the future of the country.
[Translation]
In order to carry out our responsibility to the Canadian public,
the Government of Canada introduced a law on advertising
services provided by foreign periodical publishers.
[English]
What members of the House will be voting on is not about bound
sheets of papers. It is not about a business interest. It is
about the capacity of future generations of Canadians to have a
chance to tell their stories.
1005
We will be voting on an important expression of our culture and
how we define ourselves as Canadians going proudly into the 21st
century.
Some would have us believe that our magazines, our music, our
films, our books are just about making money. They are wrong.
They are about culture. Magazines, books, movies are vehicles
for transmitting the intangibles that are the essence of a
civilization: ideas, values, perspectives and the ability to see
and celebrate our own experience and the experience of others.
Let me be very clear. Bill C-55 is not about building walls
around Canada. Bill C-55 is not about keeping out the ideas and
the expressions of other nations. Bill C-55 does not in any way
limit access to American magazines or the access that Canadians
have to reading those magazines. What is at issue is not
newsstand space for foreign magazines. What is at issue is
ensuring that Canadians continue to have access to stories that
reflect their country and that they continue to have access to a
genuine Canadian lifeline.
This legislation will allow future generations to have a choice.
This is about choices, including Canadian choices, a choice of
reading articles that reflect our culture and who we are.
Canadians not only have the right to protect our cultural
identity, we have the duty to do so.
In these past months some have alleged that we have not played
by the rules. Nothing could be further from the truth. In
August of last year Canada complied completely with all aspects
of the World Trade Organization ruling on Canadian periodicals.
We acted to repeal Tariff Code 9958. We moved to amend the
Excise Tax Act. We altered the administration of the postal
subsidy and we lowered the postal rate for foreign magazines.
[Translation]
Bill C-55 complies with the letter and the spirit of all our
international obligations, our Canadian rights, and, more
importantly still, our commitments to the future of our own
country.
Bill C-55 is a well considered measure intended to meet a very
difficult challenge. It focuses on a very specific commercial
activity. It contains absolutely up to date provisions on the
application of the law. In fact, over 100 laws contain similar
provisions.
[English]
A measure of the balance of Bill C-55 is reflected in the fact
that it has received the support of four of the five parties in
the House.
[Translation]
I know that my colleague Suzanne Tremblay, who gave a lot of
consideration to—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister knows she is to refer to
other members by their riding and not by their surname. I know
she will comply with standing orders in that regard.
Hon. Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, the member for Rimouski—Mitis
could not be here today, but I know she has given the matter
careful consideration. I simply wanted to add her voice to that
of all the other political parties, the New Democratic Party,
the Progressive Conservative Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the
Liberal Party.
What counts is that, when we look at the policies of all the
governments since Confederation, establishing structures to
protect our culture is not a partisan thing.
[English]
Successive governments have understood the delicate balance
needed to build a nation. Conservative governments and Liberal
governments, supported by members of the opposition, have
historically and continue to understand that as a nation we
reserve the right to protect our culture. That has been well
understood by parties which recognize that when we share the
world's longest undefended border with the most powerful nation
in the world, when most of us live only 100 kilometres from that
border, when most of us share the love of the movies and
magazines that come across that border, the challenges those
things represent for our children must be balanced in law.
1010
The average Canadian child will spend more time watching
television than they do in a classroom, an average of 23 hours a
week. Part of the role of government is to make sure that when
they are watching television, when they are reading books, when
they are perusing magazines, when they are experiencing films,
they have choices that include the choices of their own country.
That is what this legislation is all about.
Canada has played by the rules. We ensure that the legislation
protects the interests of all magazines that are currently
publishing legally in Canada.
Over and over again we have shown our willingness to listen.
Over and over again we have demonstrated friendship with our
American neighbours, but we maintain respect for our cultural
sovereignty. The approach we have taken to this bill is fair.
Canadians appreciate and understand fairness.
Almost all political parties have expressed support for this
bill because they understand that for us to survive as a nation
we need to have national leadership in areas of cultural
diversity and cultural respect.
The support of those who work in the community, in every single
magazine organization across the country, those who are at the
front end of delivering Canadian content, support and understand
why we have taken these measures.
For more than 100 years successive governments of different
political stripes have ensured that policies are in place to
respect diversity of expression. We need Canadian ideas,
Canadian information and a Canadian point of view.
These policies have been balanced to create a market for
American cultural products that is the most open market in the
world.
The government spends an enormous amount of time on this matter.
I think in this House alone we have had more than 50 people who
have risen to speak to this matter.
We considered the legal, the cultural and the trade aspects of
the issue. We weighed a host of possibilities. We thought long
and hard about the cost of taking action and the greater cost of
doing nothing.
What cabinet approved was a viable solution to meet the needs of
Canadians to defend our culture and to meet the desire of
Canadians to respect international law and to fulfil our
international trade obligations.
To those opposite who are wringing their hands, saying “Do
something else”, where are the options that they can provide?
In reality, do something else means do nothing. Quite frankly,
doing nothing is not an option and has never been an option.
Successive governments of different political stripes have
always acted when Canada's cultural identity is at stake. Our
cultural wealth and diversity is not an accident of the
marketplace. It is not simply an issue of consumers. It is the
result of a deliberate commitment to provide a healthy public
space for our own voices.
There is also a larger purpose. Culture is a reflection of our
society. It is our window to the world. It is also a reflection
of our soul and the way we see ourselves as citizens of the
world.
Canadians value our cultural sovereignty and will not allow any
other country to tell us what legislation we can or cannot pass.
That would be abdicating our rights as a sovereign nation.
Then there are those critics who say “This is no big deal.
There really is no risk”. Imagine if the roles were reversed.
What if over 80% of the magazines on American newsstands were
Canadian? What if Canada said “That is not good enough. We
want it all”. They would scream blue murder from Waikiki to
Wall Street to Washington.
1015
The United States has a huge cultural presence in our lives.
That is a fact. No matter how challenging, Canadians will
continue to carve out our space for the diversity of Canadian
stories and the reflection of our culture. That too is a fact of
life.
To use an analogy that I think the Americans will understand,
let us reflect on Borg in Star Trek trying to turn everyone
in the universe into one grand mass, one huge brain, one
completely dominant culture. The Borg says “Resistance is
futile. You will be assimilated”. I am here to tell members
that resistance is not futile and that Canadian cultural
diversity will not be assimilated.
Then there are those who say we are just against American
culture. That is plain ridiculous. We fully appreciate the many
wonders of American culture. We watch TV shows. We go to
Hollywood movies. We read American magazines. All we want to
ensure is that there is room for Canadian voices in Canada and
around the new globalized world.
It is okay for Canada. It is okay for the United States. We
expect the United States to act in its own interest, but it is
equally okay for us to act in our interest.
[Translation]
I would like to come back to an important point. Canada is, and
continues to be, the world's most open country when it comes to
foreign cultures. Some people are concerned that the government
wants to ban American magazines. That is not the case. We
simply wish to stop the American practice of dumping and
siphoning off Canadian advertising revenues.
[English]
One party opposite raises the issue of free speech. I agree.
The legislation is about free speech and freedom of expression.
It is about Canadians having the choice to speak to each other
through Canadian periodicals. It is about ensuring a magazine
industry which allows for freedom of Canadian expression. It is
about making sure that hundreds of scholarly magazines, religious
magazines, farm magazines and economic magazines do not
disappear. It is about ensuring the survival of magazines full
of Canadian commentary, editorial slants and letters to the
editor. In short, Canadian content.
[Translation]
Certain justice loving Canadians have said that Bill C-55 could
do enormous harm to Canadian advertisers. The truth is that
Canadian advertisers will continue to do business in an
environment that is almost the same. In this regard, the bill
changes nothing.
Certain Canadians who are not opposed to the bill in principle
are worried about its possible repercussions and cost. They
feel that we should not step in to help the Canadian periodical
industry for fear of raising American ire against too many other
Canadian industries.
[English]
I want to repeat it in English because I think a member opposite
made reference to it. Some people say we should do nothing
because the stakes we are facing in other industries, and in
particular the steel industry, are higher. To do nothing would
be to lie down to the schoolyard bully. To do nothing would set
the stage for a regime where no international laws are respected.
To do nothing would say that might means right. To do something
firms the right of the steel industry, the right of the plastics
industry, the right of the agricultural industry to play by fair
international rules.
What we understand and respect is fairness. We believe in the
final analysis that our American friends will also respect that
fairness.
[Translation]
If we withdrew every time Americans got annoyed, we would be the
laughing stock of the United States—
An hon. member: And of the whole world.
Hon. Sheila Copps: —and of the whole world.
[English]
I understand why businesses are concerned. After all, the
proposed retaliation of $3 billion is a reflection of what I
would only characterize as the reaction of the schoolyard bully.
The cultural stakes are huge but the economic stakes in no way
reflect that figure. No American will ever lose a job as a
result of this measure. Not a single American will lose a job
as a result of this measure.
[Translation]
I repeat, not a single American will lose his job because of
this bill. Not one. Yet American trade representatives are
getting ready to put Canadian jobs at risk with their policies.
1020
[English]
The United States must surely appreciate that no democratically
elected country could allow itself to be blackmailed into
submission. The disagreement over magazines is in fact a
reflection of a larger challenge. While acting to safeguard our
culture through this measure, we are also determined to pursue a
new set of international trade rules that respect culture.
Culture is not a commodity like other commodities. We need to
come to a global agreement that recognizes the unique role
cultural diversity must play in the state of nations. It will
not be easy but Canada can and will play a leadership role in
pushing for new rules on which to seek world respect for cultural
diversity.
The point of all our efforts is simple. It is to guarantee that
in the global world we continue to have shelf space for our own
stories. Bill C-55 is about acting in support of cultural
sovereignty.
[Translation]
Bill C-55 embodies the cultural sovereignty we are claiming as a
country.
[English]
It is about acting on behalf of Canada. It is about standing up
for our children. It is about ensuring that there will be an
exciting array of Canadian magazines for our grandchildren to
read. It is about guaranteeing that no foreign conglomerate,
from no matter how powerful a nation, can get away with dumping
product on to the Canadian marketplace.
I am counting on parliament to pass the legislation despite the
threats. Parliament always has and always will stand up for
Canada.
In closing I would like to quote a citizen of the world who
really put the message in a way that I think everyone will
understand and appreciate:
I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my
windows to be stuffed. I want the culture of all the lands to be
blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be
blown off my feet by any.
That message came from Mahatma Ghandi. That message is as
relevant in the House today as it ever was.
The legislation is about ensuring that in the world of nations
there is space for every nation and there is room for every
nation. That is what the legislation will guarantee and protect.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There are a number of questions we in opposition would like to
ask the minister relative to Canadian job losses and U.S.
sanctions. I seek unanimous consent of the House to ask the
minister questions for 10 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent that
there be a period of questions for 10 minutes following the
minister's speech?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will use up my 40 minutes. I am very pleased to speak to the
bill today. The bill is not about Canadian sovereignty. We
already know that we are a sovereign nation. The bill is about
putting Canadian jobs at risk. If I had the opportunity to ask
the minister, the question I would ask is whether she could
assure the country that thousands of Canadians will not lose
their jobs if the U.S. retaliates.
Reform opposes Bill C-55, unlike all other parties in the House.
I have waited patiently for five days to speak to this bill.
Time allocation was invoked this past Monday. It is ironic that
even though the amendment by the minister was not debated we
still voted on that amendment on Tuesday. I guess that is the
way things work in the House.
1025
First let me address the issue of time allocation before I make
some comments on the minister's amendment which we should have
debated in the House this past Tuesday. For the 49th time the
government invoked time allocation. It is becoming a habit of
the Liberal government. I remind members of the government what
they used to say about time allocation or closure. I will quote
a few of the members from Hansard.
In October 1989 the member for Ottawa West was quoted in the
Toronto Star as saying:
This government had shown it has no respect for the public
process, no respect for parliament and no respect for the
opinions of the public.
The current House leader thought differently of time allocation
when he was in opposition. He said:
That was in the November 16, 1992 edition of Hansard.
My last quotation in reference to closure was by the current
Minister of Foreign Affairs in an article in the April 1, 1993
edition of Toronto Star in which he said that it:
Let me speak to the amendment which the House did not have the
opportunity to debate. Reform does not support the amendment to
Bill C-55 put forth by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. This
amendment is redundant. What does the amendment change? It
changes absolutely nothing so it was unnecessary.
The actions taken by the government are contradictory if we
examine them closely. On the one hand the Liberal government is
calling for time allocation and trying to fast track the bill. At
the same time it is putting forth an amendment to slow down the
process at the implementation stage. Talk about mixed messaging.
What does the government really want? Are members opposite not
convinced about the bill? Does the government not have any faith
in Bill C-55? What does the government want in reference to Bill
C-55? Does it mean the government wants to leave it on the shelf
after it passes both houses? If that is the case why is it
invoking time allocation and fast tracking it through? It is
indeed a strange and unusual way to pass legislation.
By fast tracking Bill C-55 the government is sending a strong
message to the United States that it is ready to risk a real
trade war. Will the third reading have any effect on today's
negotiations to avoid a trade war? I hope the government knows
what it is getting into.
Peter Foster in the March 10 edition of the Financial Post
gave a very accurate account of what is currently happening. He
said:
What is really going on at the political level is a gigantic game
of chicken. Politicians are merely revving their engines and
trying to look as determined as possible while facing each other
from opposite ends of the trade drag strip.
Who will be the real causalities if the U.S. retaliates? The
real casualties will be the working people of this country, real
Canadians, real Canadian jobs: jobs in Hamilton, jobs in
Montreal, jobs in Toronto, jobs in Windsor and jobs in other
parts of Canada.
Reform is not willing to put thousands of jobs of Canadians at
risk. Therefore the Reform Party is the only opposition party
that opposes Bill C-55. As members have heard from the minister,
the government is trying to wrap itself around Canadian culture,
Canadian sovereignty and the Canadian flag in defence of Bill
C-55.
1030
Canada is a sovereign country. Bill C-55 is not about
protecting Canadian culture. If we examine Bill C-55 closely, it
is really about putting Canadian jobs at risk and putting
Canadians out of work. We have already heard that retaliation
may amount to $1 billion to $4 billion. How many jobs will that
be?
Bill C-55 had a terrible beginning. The publishers were
consulted by the government but the other half of the industry,
the advertisers, was not. From the very beginning the industry
was divided and it continues to be divided to this very day.
Publishers support Bill C-55 and the advertisers oppose it.
The government should take Bill C-55 back to the drawing board.
It is poorly put together.
Another glitch we discovered this past week is the impact Bill
C-55 will have on other ethnic split-runs in Canada which the
ministry knew nothing about. It was too busy concentrating on
American split-runs. The department does not know how many
international split-runs are currently operating in Canada. This
bill is so broad that it may affect numerous magazines already in
circulation in Canada.
On that very note, I want to clarify some things that were said
in Monday's question period. I pointed out to the heritage
minister that her magazine bill, Bill C-55, would shut down the
Chinese language World Journal and Ming Pao
magazines. In her response, the heritage minister claimed that
both magazines would be grandfathered and therefore unaffected by
Bill C-55.
The grandfathering clause, clause 21 of Bill C-55 requires that
a publisher “lawfully supplied such advertising services during
the year before the day on which this act is introduced in the
House of Commons”. The real question is did World
Journal and Ming Pao magazines lawfully supply
advertising for the Canadian market? The fact is they did not
lawfully supply advertising for the Canadian market.
During the February recess the heritage committee travelled
throughout the country listening to Canadians on the subject of
culture. We tried to answer the question of what is Canadian
culture. I was present at a meeting in Montreal. An interesting
discussion took place between two well-known Canadians, Robert
Pilon and Pierre-Marc Johnson.
Mr. Johnson stated that the history of Canada has shown that we
can compete. Satellites of today are opening doors to everyone in
the free world. Globalization will impact on everyone. There is
no way of isolating oneself to this changing world. Mr. Johnson
went on to state that he was all for openness and that “we as
Canadians need the same openness in other countries. We need both
work and trade openness in cultural goods. We need cultural
products from the rest of the world. We need to move from
defence to offence”. What does that really mean? In other
words, let us promote our culture around the world instead of
trying to protect our culture.
The heritage minister needs to heed the advice of the defence
minister. In a speech delivered January 27, 1997 the defence
minister said, “Perhaps in a new digital world, policies of
cultural promotion make more sense than traditional policies of
protection”.
I would like to read the concluding paragraph from an article
entitled “Advertising Canada's Culture: Why the New Policy on
Magazines Is Not Up to the Task” from the C.D. Howe Institute:
Canada should vigorously defend its right to promote its culture
through subsidies, tax breaks, and sensible content requirements
and definitions aimed at ensuring the continued availability to
Canadians of products from their own culture, and, in general, a
fair competitive environment for domestic cultural productions
that are demonstrably of special value to Canadians.
Canada should also insist that government policy be able to treat
magazines containing Canadian stories aimed at Canadians
differently in certain respects from those produced for a foreign
audience. But by clinging to measures that increasingly restrict
access to information, that threaten Canada's commercial
interests, and that possibly accelerate, rather than prevent,
cultural assimilation, the federal government instead risks taking
Canada down a path toward poorer cultural and economic health,
and is diminishing the chances of arriving at a negotiated agreement
with other countries on the proper line to draw between free trade and
culture.
1035
I say again, Bill C-55 takes us down that path toward cultural
assimilation.
I would now like to tell the House what Canadians are saying
about the heritage minister's magazine legislation. I will quote
from an Ottawa Citizen article written by Chris Cobb on
January 13:
Deputy U.S. trade representative Richard Fisher gave notice to
Canada's ambassador in Washington on Monday that the U.S. would
target the country's steel, wood and textile industries if Canada
goes ahead with the new magazine law.
This is from an article written by Peter Morton in the January
12 National Post:
The U.S. has raised the stakes in its battle with Ottawa over
so-called “split-run” magazines by expanding its list of
threatened economic reprisals to include Canadian steel, textiles
and clothing worth billions of dollars.
This is from the Canadian Press on January 21:
The president of Canada's second largest steel company has asked
the federal government to kill its “split-run” magazine
legislation, the CBC reported Wednesday. John Mayberry,
president of Hamilton based Dofasco, wrote to Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien and three of his key ministers saying he fears the
legislation would damage his steel company. Steel exports to the
U.S. account for 10% of Dofasco's sales, according to the letter.
Mayberry is also concerned sales to the U.S. based car
manufacturers, which also have production in Canada, could be
hurt. “I appeal to you to stop this bill immediately”,
Mayberry says in the letter.
From the Ottawa Citizen of January 13, “Do the bidding of
Canadian media giants, Rogers and Telemedia”.
From the National Post, January 12:
Don Belch, vice-president of government affairs at Stelco Inc.,
said he is not surprised that Canadian steel ended up on the list
because it has such a high profile. Canadian steel exports to the
U.S. through September last year totalled about $2.8 billion.
From the January 22 Globe and Mail:
Last week a top U.S. trade official warned Canada that the United
States will slap sanctions on Canadian exports of steel, wood
products, plastics, and textiles and apparel if the magazine law
is enacted.
Many of the targeted companies, including Hamilton based Dofasco
Inc., have complained loudly to Ottawa that the legislation is
needlessly putting them at risk. And, they want the government to
back off before the United States hits back with punitive
tariffs.
In the January 12 National Post:
Sergio Marchi, the trade minister, told the Ottawa Citizen
over the weekend that the government is interested in negotiating
with the U.S., but still has no intention of withdrawing the
legislation.
“If you want to retaliate, you might just as well do it now”
he said. “Don't wait because we ain't yanking the bill.
From an article written by Chris Cobb in the January 13 Ottawa
Citizen:
The U.S. trade official accused the Canadian government of doing
the bidding of Canadian media giants Rogers and Telemedia, who
are at the helm of an inefficient industry that does not want
competition.
1040
There are some recent articles. There was an article written by
Robert Fife in the National Post on March 8:
Roger Gallaway, a Liberal MP from Sarnia, Ontario, says he will
abstain because 40%—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that even when
quoting somebody, he cannot use the name of a member of this
House. He must refer to the member by name of the constituency
or by title. I know he would want to comply with the rules. This
is the second time this morning. I do hope that hon. members
would avoid this misuse of the rules. I think he means the hon.
member for Sarnia—Lambton.
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, I shall refrain from using
the member's name. Anyway, we know who he is and I will
continue. He says that he would abstain from the vote because
40% of Canada's $5.9 billion plastics industry is in his
riding—that is a lot a money—and that 85% of the goods are
exported south of the border. He is also concerned about aspects
of the bill that limit Canadians' rights to advertise in whatever
publication they choose. This is a quote from him:
It is telling people how they can spend their money. I think
there is a dangerous step there in terms of freedom of speech and
quite frankly I don't think telling people how to advertise is
going to influence what Canadians read anyway.
This quote is from a March 11 article written by Rosemary
Speirs:
A few Liberal MPs are starting to get cold feet, notably the
member for Hamilton West, normally a staunch supporter of the
heritage minister, but like her, a representative of Hamilton's
threatened steel industry.
The trade minister is said to be anxious, behind his bold front
in public.
I will continue with the same article.
After she left the environment ministry, the heritage minister
watched two of her previous attempts to stand up to the
Americans—her ban on the gas additive MMT and her moratorium on
the cross-border transport of PCBs—go down to humiliating
reversals.
We know that has cost taxpayers a huge sum of money.
This time however, the Prime Minister appears to have dug his
heels in. He is no doubt aware that the whole Canadian cultural
community is anxiously watching the magazine precedent.
The last article I will read is from the March 11 Ottawa
Citizen, by David Warren. The concluding paragraphs read:
Though a mindless torpedo to our actual interests, Bill C-55
makes sense as a party power play. The Liberals are trying to
preserve a Canadian media establishment beholden for its survival
to the Liberal Party. Even if they can't possibly succeed, they
want to be seen helping their old reliable friends.
The Liberals get their moment of seedy rapture, wrapping
themselves in the red Canadian flag. We get to pay for it.
Let us look at the realities of Canada. We all know that
Canada's beginnings were with trade. Remember the Hudson's Bay
Company. Over the years and still today our economy is fueled by
trade. We have heard often that 83.5% of all goods and services
produced in the country head south. It is a fact that our
economy is directly linked to the U.S. economy, whether we like
it or not. That is a reality check.
To support this position I would like to read parts of a speech
given by our international trade minister to the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
This took place on February 9 this year.
1045
I quote the Minister for International Trade:
We live in exciting times. Around the world, trade barriers are
falling down, opportunities are opening up and the possibilities
for Canadians to create better lives for themselves and for their
children are greater than at any time in our history.
Technology is collapsing distances, and there is an ever-smaller
distinction between international and domestic markets. We are
able both to buy from and sell into markets that had previously
been closed to us.
For a trading nation such as ours, these developments are to be
welcomed. They provide Canadians with rewards for their labour,
markets for their products and hope for their future.
First, we have benefited from liberalized trade because our
economy is so dependent upon trade. In fact, we depend more upon
trade for our prosperity than any other G-7 country.
Forty per cent of our GDP and one in three Canadian jobs depend
upon our ability to sell our goods and services abroad.
Between 1992 and 1996, our exports grew roughly four times
faster than our GDP. Due in no small measure to this
performance, the Canadian economy created more than 1 million new
jobs—450,000 last year alone. The connection between our trade
figures and our employment figures could not be clearer.
There is a relationship between trade and job creation according
to the international trade minister. I continue from his speech:
This is something that we need to stress. Trade is not an
abstraction. It produces real jobs for real people and is not
just happening on the international stage—it is happening
locally, in our communities and in our neighbourhoods.
As a result of earlier rounds of trade talks, we have opened our
economy and enhanced our opportunities. And, as country that
depends so heavily upon trade and investment, we have benefited
from more open markets.
He made one more key point:
The real challenge in trade policy, therefore, is not
protectionism versus liberalization—closing or opening our
borders—but to recognize our interconnectedness and learn to
manage our national differences.
Canada stands today as a trading powerhouse at a time when the
world is embracing freer trade as never before. We are in the
right place at the right time, and our future has never been
brighter.
By experiencing firsthand the benefits of trading abroad, many
of the concerns about liberalization are put into perspective.
And far from seeing trade liberalization as something to be
feared, Canadians have come to see it as something to be
embraced.
We can see that our international trade minister understands
trade, what an open door policy is all about, what promotion is
about rather than protection. Like most Canadians, he knows our
economy is based on trade. That is what Bill C-55 is about. It
makes no sense. It takes a protectionist approach. I cannot
understand why the trade minister has defended Bill C-55 in
public. Defending Bill C-55 contradicts his position.
At a meeting I asked the international trade minister if his
department had done a risk assessment on this bill. Of course I
did not get an answer. Knowing what he does I find it hard to
believe this government would not do a risk analysis to consider
the potential outcome if the Americans retaliate. In essence
Bill C-55 is not about culture protection. It is anti-free trade
and it puts Canadian jobs at risk.
1050
I would like to examine some of the myths we have heard from
across the way about Bill C-55. The first myth I would like to
dispel is that Canadian magazines do not want subsidies. The fact
is the Canadian magazine industry receives a postal subsidy of
almost $50 million annually, a significant portion of which goes
to Rogers and Télémédia, the dominant Canadian periodical
publishers. Another fact is that Canadian magazines effectively
offer their advertisers a taxpayer funded 45% discount through
section 19 of the Income Tax Act.
Myth number two is that U.S. magazines crowd out Canadian
periodicals. Often heard is the statistic that foreign magazines
capture 80% of the news stand space. This figure reflects the
fact that English language Canadian magazines do not rely on news
stand sales to generate revenue. Of the top 28 Canadian based English
language magazines, only 5% are distributed through news
stand sales, 59% are distributed through controlled circulation,
with the remaining 36% being sold through subscriptions.
The third myth is that Bill C-55 is needed to protect the
Canadian magazine industry. The fact is that a study
commissioned by the federal government revealed that small
Canadian niche magazines are not vulnerable to competition in a
deregulated industry.
Another fact is that Canada's two dominant periodical
publishers, Rogers and Télémédia, are large, immensely profitable
corporations as evidenced by both their financial statements and
their massive Bill C-55 lobbying effort and ad campaign.
In 1997 the magazine publishing arm of Rogers, a $2.6 billion
conglomerate, generated operating profits worth 10.4% of revenue
while Télémédia, for the nine month operating period May 31,
1997, had operating profits of 11.7% of revenues.
The fourth myth is without Bill C-55 a flood of U.S. split-run
magazines will swamp the Canadian market. The fact is that since
October 1998 Canada has had no law prohibiting split-run
magazines. Yet not a single split-run magazine has entered the
Canadian market during that time, at least the ones the
government knows about.
The fifth myth is that split-run magazines will discount
advertising rates to scoop up advertisers who would otherwise be
forced to use Canadian magazines. The fact is Bill C-55 permits
Time Canada, a U.S. split-run magazine, to operate in
Canada. Far from scooping Canadian advertising revenues,
Time Canada charges higher advertising rates and carries
fewer advertisements than its major Canadian competitor
Maclean's. A comparison of Time Canada and
Maclean's reveals that many companies place the same
advertisements in both magazines.
Another fact is that magazine advertising as a percentage of
total advertising has declined from 11% to 6% over the last 30
years. These advertising revenues have not been scooped by
split-run magazines. Rather, advertisers have switched to other
media because of a lack of appropriate Canadian periodicals to
reach their targeted market.
As a study commissioned by the Canadian government concluded,
the major reason for the underdeveloped state of magazines in
Canada is lack of available advertisers, titles and little or no
Canadian title coverage for many editorial segments. The
advertising community will avoid recommending the magazine medium
if lack of advertisers and available titles prevents proper
execution of plans.
The last myth is that Bill C-55 complies with international
trade rules. It is a fact that it does not comply with trade
rules.
1055
Bill C-55 is not just about advertising. It is about magazines.
Bill C-55 discriminates against foreign magazines, contrary to
previous World Trade Organization rulings. It is as simple as
that.
The question is why are these publishing giants crying poor
while spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to push Bill C-55
through parliament instead of exploring viable alternatives.
There is no doubt that the two trades are heading closer and
closer on a collision course. I have been told that negotiations
are occurring as we speak.
To put this in perspective, I want to read two letters for the
record to illustrate how serious this matter is and to show that
Bill C-55 may launch Canada into a trade war with the United
States.
The first letter comes from the United States Senate committee
on finance dated February 5 and written to Charlene Barshefsky,
the United States trade representative.
The second comes from the committee of ways and means of the
House of Representatives dated February 9 and written to the
Canadian ambassador to the United States, Raymond Chrétien.
I wonder if reading the letters now is a good thing considering
we are almost at 11 o'clock.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have six minutes
if we interrupt at this point in his speech, which the Chair is
prepared to do. Perhaps we will call it 11 o'clock and start
with Statements by Members. The hon. member can resume his
remarks after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Paul Gervais is a child molester and pedophile. Yesterday an
Ottawa area judge handed him conditional sentencing for molesting
nine teenage boys. These boys will be scarred for life by the
horrible acts Mr. Gervais committed. Mr. Gervais, on the other
hand, is home free.
That is an affront to all victims of sexual abuse. It is a
terrible insult to the children Gervais attacked.
Violent offenders and sex offenders should never, under any
circumstance, be given conditional sentences. Before criminals,
particularly violent ones, choose to commit a crime they should
know they will be dealt with strictly by the law.
We as lawmakers have a responsibility to build and protect the
justice system which at the very least does two things, protects
victims and deters criminals. The victims in this case have been
victimized twice, once by Gervais and once by the courts.
I call on all members of the House to show their compassion and
exercise their authority to put an end to conditional sentencing.
* * *
POLAND
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 10
years ago Canada and Poland belonged to opposing military blocs,
deploying millions of troops on the two sides of the Berlin wall.
Today in a ceremony in Independence, Missouri, Poland, Hungary
and the Czech Republic will make their formal entry into NATO.
Ten years ago the obstacles Poland had to face in the dawn of
the post-cold war era seemed insurmountable. Polish citizens had
to virtually undo 40 years of history.
Poland is today a perfect example of a thriving and effective
democracy. Poland is leading by example in the transformation to
free markets among the emerging nations of eastern and central
Europe.
Canada has long recognized the potential of the citizens of
Poland. Poland is now our most important trading partner in
central Europe. Two way trade between our two nations now stands
at over $311 million annually, more than double what it was just
six years ago.
The over 800,000 Canadians of Polish origin join me in welcoming
Canada's newest ally. We commend this government for ensuring
that Poland takes its place among the NATO group of nations.
* * *
CHRIS FULL
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank one of my constituents, Mr. Chris
Full, who donated two weeks of his time to review the
reconstruction of a sanatorium for children in Vladimir, Russia.
1100
At the invitation of the Canadian Volunteer Advisors to Business
he used his skills and Canadian experience to identify and
correct mistakes in the design of this facility. He also
produced a business plan for completion of the project as well as
recommending a list of reliable Canadian suppliers for medical
and diagnostic equipment.
Chris is typical of the highly skilled volunteers who donate
their time to the Canadian Volunteer Advisors to Business which
provided almost 23,000 days of assistance last year to developing
nations, emerging market economies and Canadian aboriginal
communities. Their volunteers are part of Canada's effort to
stimulate development in disadvantaged economies.
Once again I want to congratulate and thank Chris Full for
efforts that will improve the lives of children in Russia.
* * *
LEARNING DISABILITIES AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is
Learning Disabilities Awareness Month, a time when we can come
together to focus, direct and strengthen the efforts of all
Canadians toward meeting the needs of persons with learning
disabilities. These needs include access to education,
employment and social development.
It is ironic that the government of Ontario will allow school
boards to cut funding for special education by closing schools
and denying those with learning disabilities the chance to learn.
This constitutes a violation of their basic and fundamental
human rights.
I call on the province of Ontario to do everything it can to
keep schools open and provide the proper funding in order to do
the right thing for the most vulnerable in our society.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL KIDNEY MONTH
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the
month of March has been designated National Kidney Month.
During this month, the Canadian Kidney Foundation will once
again focus its efforts on raising Canadians' awareness of the
importance of organ donation. The kidney is a vital organ. A
person whose kidneys have failed must undergo dialysis or a
kidney transplant.
More than 20,000 Canadians suffer from kidney disorders. For
many, the only option is a transplant.
Unfortunately, there is a serious shortage of organs available
in Canada for transplant.
[English]
I encourage all members of the House and all Canadians to sign
an organ donor card and to tell their families of their decision.
Please join me in lending support to the Kidney Foundation of
Canada during National Kidney Month.
* * *
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Endangered Species Day just past, and yet an
environmental holocaust is taking place. Every day two to three
species of animals, plants and fish become extinct. They are
lost forever. The Bengal tiger, the black rhino, the cheetah
and, closer to home, the eastern cougar and Vancouver Island
marmot are on the brink.
Thirty-four thousand species of flora and 1,100 species of birds
are on the brink of extinction. One-half of all species will
disappear in the next hundred years.
Canada does not have an endangered species act to penalize
offenders and enforcement officers are understaffed.
There are solutions. In South Africa an ambitious program to
marry private interests and public interests has saved dozens and
dozens of species, expanded habitat and improved biodiversity.
We need to look at this model to save the species in our country.
If we save these species we will save ourselves. If we do not,
we will surely meet the same fate and we will become Homo
sapiens, the exterminator.
* * *
BUSINESS INVESTMENT
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
hon. members know, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and
as a result of the work of the finance minister, Canada has been
getting the economic fundamentals right. Just how right and how
good Canada's brand name is was once again demonstrated by the
release yesterday of an international cost comparison study
conducted by the management and consulting firm KPMG.
This international study compared data on typical costs of doing
business for nine industry sectors, including manufacturing and
service operations in 64 cities around the world located in the
G-7 countries and Austria.
The KPMG report is good news for Canada as it demonstrates that
among the eight countries Canada offers the most cost effective
locations for new business investment. The challenge now for all
of us is to spread this good news message to business communities
around the world. Fortunately we have a tremendous product to
sell.
* * *
BILL C-68
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this Thursday I met with five angry police officers.
They are angry because federal funding cuts are imperilling
essential police services while hundreds of millions of dollars
are being spent to implement Bill C-68. They are angry because
the money already wasted on a registry of personal firearms would
have been more than enough to upgrade the vital CPIC system.
1105
They are angry because the closure of the RCMP training depot in
Regina, even if it is only a temporary measure, guarantees that
the force will continue to be short-staffed for years to come.
They are angry because underfunding of forensic services means
that laboratory results which used to be available in a matter of
days now take several weeks.
They are angry because in addition to diverting vast sums that
could be used to fight crime, the firearms registry is generating
public ill-will which hinders the ability of officers to do their
jobs.
* * *
[Translation]
CAMILLE LAURIN
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the man who
came to be known as the father of Bill 101, Camille Laurin, has
passed away after a long illness.
Mr. Laurin did much to enrich Quebec politics. With him, people
knew what the sovereignist movement was all about.
As a kind of socio-linguistic therapist, his desire was to make
not only Quebec but all of Canada aware of our special position
in North America. He knew how to make political choices and
stick to them, and contributed greatly to enhancing the worth of
the French language.
We respectfully salute the accomplishments of Dr. Camille
Laurin, and offer our most sincere condolences to his family.
* * *
[English]
SOCIAL POLICY
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are told
the United Nations deems Canada as being one of the best
countries in the world in which to live and the best for food,
but not for the aboriginal people living either off or on
reserve, not for the poor and not for those living in isolated
northern communities.
These are the people who are paying the cost of this Liberal
political agenda. The deregulation of airlines and forcing
Canada Post to make money has forced up the price of goods in
northern and isolated communities. Abandonment of social housing
has left off reserve aboriginals to die in the garbage dumps and
on the main streets of this rich country.
We expect this government to make Canada the best place for all
our citizens and to put homes, health and justice as high on its
agenda as it puts the giant world of business.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is good news about the economy this morning.
Statistics Canada announced that the number of jobs increased in
February, which means that we are still on the road to economic
recovery.
These results follow seven consecutive monthly increases and
they bring to 1,620,000 the number of new jobs created in Canada
since we took office in 1993.
The unemployment rate remained unchanged from January, at 7.8%.
This is the lowest rate since June 1990. It should be noted that
we are talking about an increase in the number of full time jobs
here.
In short, Canada is well managed. The federal government's
economic and financial policies are working.
Results clearly show that we must stay on this road to economic
growth.
* * *
[English]
BIG BROTHERS AND BIG SISTERS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to pay tribute to Big
Brothers and Big Sisters organizations across the country, and in
particular in my home riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
It was with great honour that I was chosen to be the honorary
chairman of the annual bowl-a-thon in my riding that took place
last weekend, which raised over $38,000. Similar events took
place across the country.
I am very thankful for my experience as a big brother with
Matthew Jardine. For many years volunteering my time to this
organization was an important event in my life. In return, Big
Brothers and Big Sisters organizations have given me a great
sense of community and pride.
Being a big brother is probably one of the most positive
experiences a person can enjoy. I feel tremendously rewarded by
having been involved in this program.
Today I urge all hon. members of the House to donate time and,
where appropriate, money for this worthwhile program. Big
Brothers and Big Sisters enriches the lives of all those who
choose to make the commitment to be a big brother or a big
sister. In this day and age, with so many people facing
challenging times, particularly young people, having a stable
influence in their lives and a person who cares is what is so
unique and fantastic about these organizations.
My main hope is that more people will become involved in Big
Brothers and Big Sisters so that the number of organizations will
grow throughout the country for the benefit of all those
involved.
I wish Big Brothers and Big Sisters continued success as they
enrich the lives of so many.
* * *
[Translation]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let me
read into the record the opinion of an author quoted by Justice
L'Heureux-Dubé, who overturned an Alberta court judgment
acquitting a person accused of sexual assault.
One of the myths about rape is the idea that women dream about
being raped; that even when they say no, they mean yes; that any
woman could fend off a rapist if she really wanted to; that
women often deserve to be raped because of their behaviour, the
way they dress or their attitude; and that it is worse to be
raped by a stranger than by an acquaintance.
1110
As members know, this ruling was the subject of much discussion.
However, you will agree that, discuss as we may, the distress of
sexual assault victims can never be adequately expressed.
On this International Women's Week, we must take a long look at
our collective responsibility regarding violence against women.
The controversy surrounding the Ewanchuk ruling must not obscure
the primary message sent by the supreme court on February 25,
namely that “no means no”.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am happy to share with members of the House the recent
Statistics Canada figures for employment.
In October 1993, when the Liberals formed the government, the
unemployment rate in my province of B.C. was 9.4%. It is now
8.1%, a reduction of 1.3%. It is clear that job creation is a
priority for this government.
Statistics Canada has reported that national unemployment is
only 7.8%, which is an all-time low since 1990. This is good
news for Canada and for British Columbia.
* * *
THE UNITED ALTERNATIVE
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here are the
top 10 reasons Liberals love the united alternative: No. 10,
seeing John Crosbie at another united alternative convention; No.
9, maybe it will convince the Leader of the Opposition to get a
new haircut; No. 8, seeing Reformers fighting amongst themselves;
No. 7, more page 1 stories about missed phone calls between the
Leader of the Opposition and Joe Clark; No. 6, the sight of the
official opposition admitting it can never hope to form a
government; No. 5, Reformers begging separatists to join; No. 4,
more watering down of Reform blue book principles; No. 3, a
wedding proposal and a wedding date, and the Tory bride says no
to both; No. 2, we Liberals love seeing Reformers living
alternative lifestyles; finally, the No. 1 reason Liberals love
the united alternative is that its preordained failure will
guarantee a third consecutive Liberal majority government.
* * *
[Translation]
CAMILLE LAURIN
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we were struck
yesterday by the news of the death of Dr. Camille Laurin.
Sovereignists in Quebec have lost a great leader. His
masterpiece, Bill 101, lives on and will long ensure the
development of the francophone society in Quebec.
I had the pleasure of sitting next to Dr. Laurin in the Quebec
National Assembly between 1981 and 1984 and I recall him as a
very cultivated, determined and humanitarian individual, always
ready to listen to and support his colleagues.
Passionate about the French language, he has carved himself a
place in history with his remarkable work to protect it.
All of Quebec today mourns the loss of this remarkable man. PQ
supporters are profoundly affected by his departure, and I
would, on their behalf and that of my colleagues, offer my
deepest sympathies to those close to him.
* * *
[English]
ANGELO MOSCA
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with
the indulgence of this place may I take just a brief moment to
recognize the presence in the Speaker's gallery of football hero,
Hall of Famer, former Hamilton Tiger Cat great, generous
Hamiltonian and a Canadian by choice, Mr. Angelo Mosca, along
with his wife Helen, son Nathan and son's friend Stephanie.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
seven years ago in Courtenay, B.C., six year old Dawn Shaw was
brutally raped and murdered. Her 15 year old killer, Jason
Gamache, was a repeat sex offender.
Not even the RCMP were aware of Jason's history of child sexual
assault because the Young Offenders Act forbade professionals
treating a young offender from discussing the case in public. He
was prohibited access to children, but because of the YOA nobody
knew about his record. He lived next door to a school and was
babysitting Dawn Shaw the night he killed her.
In the new legislation, the public must be made aware of repeat
sexual offenders like Jason Gamache if we are to protect our
children. We must ensure that the new YOA is drafted to protect
our children, to punish the offenders and to make public the
names of the offenders and the details of the offences. The new
YOA, as presently drafted, does not address these points.
* * *
1115
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday new legislation concerning young offenders was
introduced. There was concern expressed about offenders younger
than the age of 12 being lost between the cracks with respect to
receiving opportunities for rehabilitation.
The minister pointed out that these children would not be lost
but would be caught up in the social services and mental health
systems. I certainly agree that these would be the appropriate
systems for dealing with these young children rather than the
criminal justice system.
However, I would strongly urge that the federal government, if
it is serious about children, ensure adequate funding for the
social service and mental health system so that these young
children are not simply dumped on an already overburdened and
underfunded child welfare system.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in one single day Alberta did what the federal Liberals have
refused to do for the last six years.
In yesterday's budget Alberta cut taxes deeply and raised health
care to record levels. The federal Liberals have done the
opposite in the House. Their taxes are at a record high and they
have beaten our health care system into submission.
What is the junior finance minister's excuse? Why can the rest
of Canada not have the kind of low taxes and strong health care
that Alberta has?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member must have been dreaming about the new
reformatory party he wants to create when the budget was read. If
he had paid attention to it, he would have realized that the
government is committed to bringing in over $16 billion in tax
relief for Canadians over the next three years.
He should be getting up today and praising us for this, as well
as for the fact that unemployment remains at the lowest rate this
month in the past nine years. It is the eighth consecutive month
of employment growth. Why does he not get up and recognize that?
That is something important for all Canadians.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, maybe we should put up somebody from that side who knows
what he is talking about.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I urge the hon. opposition House leader to
be very judicious in his choice of words.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I will be judicious, okay.
One of the smartest things about the Alberta budget yesterday
was that it removed any tax discrimination against stay at home
parents.
What is so embarrassing for the Liberals is that in order to
give families this fairness Alberta had to break away from the
federal tax system altogether. It has set up a completely
separate, discrimination free tax rate of only 11%.
Will the junior finance minister over there, now that Alberta
has spelled it out for them, remove all discrimination from the
federal income tax system too?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in spite of
difficult fiscal circumstances we have recognized the need to
support families with children.
This is why in the last budget there was $213 for a single
earner family in the child tax benefit. This is why we have
increased the child tax benefit by $2 billion, to a total now of
$7 billion to support families with children.
As we move ahead with further tax cuts it is important to
recognize whether we will have across the board tax cuts or
whether we will target our tax cuts to particular family
situations or a combination of both.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting over here. Alberta is dealing with a
surplus, the same as the federal government, and yet Alberta
comes up with the answers.
Let us look at what it has done. Alberta ended anti-family tax
discrimination. It lowered taxes for everyone. It moved to a
simple single tax rate of 11%. It outlawed bracket creep taxes
and it increased health care spending at the same time. That is
the modern, smart way to run a government in 1999.
We know the junior finance minister's view of stay at home
parents is stuck in the 1970s, but why is his tax system stuck in
the 1970s as well?
1120
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have in my hand a report from the Ottawa Citizen
datelined Edmonton which says that the proposals in the Alberta
budget are such that they “delay major breaks for taxpayers well
into the next century”.
Furthermore the report says “poor economic performance could
scuttle the proposal. The province's failure to increase total
revenues by $1.6 billion by 2002 would delay all the tax changes,
possibly putting them off indefinitely”.
We want tax relief for Canadians now. They are getting it now,
not like in Alberta—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister offers doom and gloom about Alberta. It
is Alberta that is taking action instead of lip service when it
comes to substantive tax relief. In one day it provided tax
relief for everyone. In one day it ended tax discrimination
against stay at home parents and in one day it reduced its tax
system to a much simpler system, and it did this while it
increased health care spending.
What is the Liberal excuse today for not cutting its punishing
taxes in the exact same way?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this issue we
have seen from the Reform Party three different proposals within
one week.
They range in cost from $4.5 billion a year to $56 billion per
year, and not one of its proposals does what it purports to seek,
that is tax equality among one and two earner families with
children at home.
This is why we cannot afford to make tax policy on the fly. This
is why we have referred it to the finance committee for sober and
reasoned consideration.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party believes in tax relief for everyone and
Alberta proved that can be done in a single day.
It is this government that is stubborn and that refuses to
provide that substantive kind of tax relief. It continues to
pick on stay at home parents with kids. It continues to pick on
low income families. Eight hundred thousand Albertans will not
be paying provincial tax yet the federal government will continue
to wring taxes out of those people.
The working poor are left alone by the Alberta tax man. Why
does the federal government not do the exact same thing?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance critic for the Reform Party in his questions
yesterday showed that the Reform Party's priority was tax relief
for billionaires. Our priority is tax relief for all Canadians.
The hon. member has not dealt with the report in the Ottawa
Citizen which states that “in the Alberta budget says any
tax relief is conditional upon achieving certain economic goals
and that if they are not achieved, then there is no tax relief
and any changes are put off to the next century”. I dare the
member to answer that question.
* * *
[Translation]
CULTURAL DIVERSITY
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage sees herself as the defender of Canada's
culture, but once again, as we have seen this week, she says one
thing and does another.
What credibility does she have to claim to properly represent
Quebec in cultural terms, when she belongs to a government that
is doing everything to diminish Quebec's place internationally
and when she goes along with that?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is important that we continue to work together. It
is also important internationally that there respect for a
nation's sovereignty.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Canadian Heritage keeps repeating wherever she is that
Quebeckers have nothing to fear, that they will have all the
room they need to grow within the Canadian family. That is what
she says.
And yet, once again, together with her government, has she not
underscored the huge difference between word and deed and that
her remarks are completely devoid of meaning?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a policy on sound recordings that the Bloc
supports. We have a copyright act the Bloc Quebecois supports.
We have final debate today on Bill C-55 in order to protect
Canadian publications, with the support of the Bloc.
Therefore, our action promotes the growth of cultural diversity
in Canada, supported by the Bloc.
1125
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week
the attitude taken by the Minister of Canadian Heritage
concerning Quebec's presence at the meeting on cultural
diversity sent a clear message to Quebeckers on how she views
Quebec's international role.
Has the Minister of Canadian Heritage not demonstrated very
clearly that, if Quebeckers are to take what they consider to be
their legitimate place internationally, they have no choice but
to become a sovereign country, or in other words to assume sole
responsibility for their relations with other countries in the
world?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois is constantly making the point that we must
respect constitutional divisions between federal and provincial
jurisdictions.
Under our constitution, jurisdiction over international matters
belongs wholly to the federal government, and this is the
position we always take. If the Bloc Quebecois wants to respect
constitutional jurisdictions, it cannot have it both ways.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
speaking of areas of jurisdiction, in my opinion culture is a
provincial jurisdiction.
With the efforts being expended by the federal government to
restrict the presence of Quebec on the international scene to
the strict minimum, how can the Minister of Canadian Heritage
make any claim to defend the distinct cultural nature of Quebec
better than a sovereign Quebec would?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
always work to help the province of Quebec develop,
particularly in the area of culture.
International matters, under our constitution, fall under
federal jurisdiction. That is not hard to understand. I wonder
why it is so difficult for the Bloc Quebecois to grasp this. It
is constantly calling for us to respect federal jurisdictions
in other areas. As I have already said, it cannot have it both
ways.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we were
told at the recent united alternative conference that the most
popular slogan was “PM for leader”, but it was not referring to
the Reform leader; it was referring to the finance minister.
We saw Reformers drooling over the Liberal's recent budget. Now
we see the finance minister flirting with the flat tax.
Will the government assure Canadians that in his bid for Reform
affection the finance minister will not turn his back on
progressive taxation?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think an even
more important question that we have is with the endorsement of
Stockwell Day by members of the Reform Party.
Does that mean that they will support him for leader of the
united alternative?
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government does not want to address the question about
progressive taxation because Canadians woke up to the finance
minister's statement that he would look at Alberta's flat tax
with a great deal of interest.
The question is: In whose interest? It is certainly not in the
interest of ordinary Canadians who would get shafted by the flat
tax.
Has the government decided to turn its back on progressive
taxation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, just a few days ago the NDP, under the hon. member's
leadership, joined with the Reform Party in an attack on
progressive taxation.
Unlike the leader of the NDP, unlike the Reform Party, the
Government of Canada is committed to principles that taxes must
reflect an individual's ability to pay and that tax reductions
must benefit first those who need them the most, low and middle
income Canadians.
I think the leader of the NDP should be ashamed of herself for
having, in a formal way through a vote, abandoned those
principles.
* * *
1130
[Translation]
THE JUDICIARY
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the New Brunswick government amended its Judicature
Act in order to add a second judge to New Brunswick's Court of
Queen's Bench, in Campbellton. This is a strange coincidence,
given that a provincial election will soon be held.
I learned today that the Minister of Justice is still not
convinced that a second judge is necessary.
What will it take to convince her? That other criminals be
released into the community, because of excessive delays in
court proceedings?
[English]
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will take the question under advisement and bring an answer back
to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
not the first time I raise this issue in the House.
[English]
What more evidence does the minister need? The legal community
of Campbellton, the provincial minister of justice, even the
chief justice of the province agree that a new judge is necessary
as caseloads are tripling. Women forced to leave abusive homes
cannot even get a court date to have their properties and their
support issues dealt with.
Will the minister announce to the House when she intends to make
a decision on the request for a new judge in the court district
of Restigouche?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe I have already stated that I will take it under
advisement and we will bring back our response to the House.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's changes to the Young Offenders Act were
largely cosmetic. For example, the law kept the identities of
convicted criminals a secret for fully 99% of all young
offenders. Only the names of 1% of the most extreme criminals
will have their names published.
Why does the new act still hide the identities of youth
convicted of armed robbery, home invasions and sexual assault
with a weapon?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I understand the proposals which have been widely
praised by people in the justice community, publication of names
of anyone who receives an adult sentence will be permitted.
Publication would also be allowed if a youth at large is
considered by a judge to be dangerous. These are important steps
forward. The hon. member should recognize this.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I think the Deputy Prime Minister has
the wrong notes. A young person convicted of an assault with a
weapon will still be released back into the community without the
community knowing. A young person convicted of sexual assault
will still have their identity kept a secret. These young
criminals will mingle at school and in the parks without anybody
knowing whatever happened.
Why does the government not think that sexual assault with a
weapon or armed robbery or hostage taking during a home invasion
is a serious crime? Why would we hide the identity of 99% of
these serious criminals?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as was stated yesterday when the minister brought forth her new
youth criminal justice act, we are not the party that wants to
criminalize 10 year olds and 12 year olds. Ours is a different
approach. Ours is a balanced approach. We will deal with this
act differently for violent young offenders and non-violent young
offenders. We are talking in this act about protecting society
through accountability, meaningful consequences and
rehabilitation, not criminalizing 10 year olds and 12 year olds.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Justice once again yielded in a
pitiful way to the right by introducing coercive measures for
young offenders, a decision that can only please hard-liners.
Will the minister admit to the House, as she did at a press
conference yesterday, that her bill does not give any additional
leeway to the provinces in the area of prevention or
rehabilitation?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
Quebec's president of the bar said, our new approach will allow
Quebec to continue to do what it has been doing so far.
I should also point out that, at yesterday's press conference,
the minister said that the budget of the Minister of Finance
provides $206 million for rehabilitation. Let us also not forget
that, every year, we have allocated $32 million for crime
prevention.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
regards Quebec's president of the bar, I cannot wait to see the
reaction of the committee of the Barreau du Québec, which
examined the issue and contradicted the president of the bar.
1135
Does the minister realize that, by toughening up the act as she
did, she is putting undue pressure on the Quebec justice system,
thus undermining 25 years of expertise in the area of juvenile
crime?
The parliamentary secretary is from Quebec. She should speak up
against her minister on this issue.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
precisely, I am indeed from Quebec and I am very pleased that the
legislation introduced by the minister. Apart from the president
of the bar, I want to quote what Guy Cournoyer, a well known
Montreal criminologist, had to say. He indicated he “would
continue to develop his psychosocial approach, as opposed to the
legal approach”.
This is precisely what the new bill that was introduced will
allow.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the parliamentary secretary shows certainly a knowledge of the
legal system but she shows no regard for the issues the public
brings forward and its concerns about the Young Offenders Act.
My question is for the parliamentary secretary. Can she tell
the House why violent crimes like robbery, sexual assault with a
weapon and hostage taking were left out of the new Young
Offenders Act? Does she not consider these to be violent crimes?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I said earlier and as the minister indicated, we are not the
party that wants to criminalize 10 and 11 year olds. I keep
repeating that.
Our new approach is only one piece of the whole puzzle. The
Reform Party keeps forgetting this whenever it asks questions.
There are other sections in the Criminal Code that take care of
cases like those, not only the present legislation we tabled in
the House.
Our approach, I repeat, is a balanced approach, an approach that
does want to protect society. That is exactly what we are doing
with this new law. We are also talking about meaningful
consequence, accountability—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it was the chairman of the Liberal justice committee who actually
pronounced that 10 and 11 years olds should be brought forward as
part of the Young Offenders Act, not the Reform Party.
The minister's selection of crimes to suit her purpose is a
curious one. She includes aggravated sexual assault, of which
there were three in 1996 and 1997, in her list of select crimes,
and yet dismisses sexual assaults with a weapon, of which there
were 46.
Why does the minister not think sexual assault with a weapon or
armed robbery or hostage taking during a home invasion is a
serious crime?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the House will have opportunity to go into all these
issues in detail.
In the meantime, according to the Edmonton Sun, Chief John
Lindsay, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of
Police, said: “We see some very positive things in this new
bill. We honestly think this is a more serious response to more
serious and violent crime, and that pleases us”.
There is a statement from somebody who knows what he is talking
about. He is the chief of the Edmonton police force in the hon.
member's own province. The member ought to listen to this voice
of reality, reason and knowledge.
* * *
[Translation]
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Everyone recognizes the importance of ensuring the Prime
Minister's safety and this is true for the secondary residence
as well. What is surprising is that the work in question was
done without going to tender.
How can the Prime Minister's safety be used to justify
circumventing the tender process? Are we to understand that all
the security features of the renovation of the Parliament
Buildings, for example, could be sole sourced because the Prime
Minister's safety was involved?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister built a new home and
he paid for it. Also, he had his own private driveway. That is
a private matter.
The RCMP is responsible for the security of the Prime Minister.
It requested that this firm be hired because it was in the area
and for security reasons.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we are talking about a road and a sentry box, not
sophisticated security equipment such as an alarm system.
What security reason is there for sole sourcing the construction
of a length of road or a shelter for police officers?
1140
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, sole source contracting is acceptable for
security reasons.
As I indicated, the RCMP requested that this road be built. As
I also indicated, the Prime Minister had another private road of
his own. He did not need it but the RCMP requested that this
road be built.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has allowed another sex offender to go
unpunished.
Paul Gervais was convicted of sexually assaulting nine boys. He
was tried, confessed and convicted. Because of a legal loophole
called conditional sentencing, Gervais left the court house
yesterday and went home.
How can the minister continue to defend this Liberal loophole
that lets sexual predators go free?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot comment on the particulars of this case. I will tell the
hon. member what we have already done in terms of conditional
sentences.
The minister has referred the matter to the justice committee.
There are cases pending before the supreme court and she awaits
those decisions. She has stated in the House that if necessary
she will change the law.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it was this Liberal government under Bill C-41 that
brought in this law. The Reform Party told it repeatedly to
change it then, to amend it then. It would not listen.
When it comes to the use of conditional sentencing, the B.C.
court of appeal has stated: “If parliament had intended to
exclude certain offences from consideration, it should have done
so in clear language”.
I want the parliamentary secretary to clearly answer, yes or no.
Will she attempt to convince her minister that the sentencing act
should be changed immediately so that violent criminals like Paul
Gervais spend time in jail instead of at home?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is another perfect example of where process is not necessary
for the opposition.
We have a process. The minister has already stated in the House
that she will take up the matter. The justice committee has
always agreed to study it. The Supreme Court of Canada is
rendering a decision. The minister has stated again and again
that if necessary she will make the necessary changes.
* * *
[Translation]
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Public Works and Government Services has behaved imprudently
to say the least in awarding a contract without tender to a
contractor hired privately by the Prime Minister to construct a
second residence.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
By giving the Prime Minister's private contractor the benefit of
an untendered contract, has the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services not put the Prime Minister in a situation
that is awkward and embarrassing to say the least?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in this case the department of public
works received a request from the RCMP that this contractor be
hired because of security reasons and because he was in the area.
Also it is important to note that this was a second road for the
Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had his own private road. He
did not need this road. It was the decision of the RCMP for
security reasons that this road be put in.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Concerns have been raised over the state of on reserve
aboriginal housing. Poor living conditions and overcrowding
problems are occurring on reserves in many parts of the country.
Will the government commit to improving the lives of aboriginal
Canadians by ensuring that they have the resources necessary to
meet their serious housing needs?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the member for his interest in this very important and
critical issue to all Canadians.
I am pleased to report to the House that on March 10, with
national Chief Phil Fontaine, the Government of Canada, through
my minister, made a announcement of an additional $20 million for
housing for aboriginal people on reserve.
1145
This responds to our ongoing commitment, our concern for our
first nations people on reserve. It gives them the opportunity
to live in housing conditions that are acceptable to all
Canadians.
* * *
FOREST INDUSTRY
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the Canadian forest industry's most valued
customers is the Home Depot chain of North American stores.
On March 17 Rainforest Action Network is co-ordinating a massive
protest at Home Depot stores across Canada and the U.S. to urge
people not to buy our old growth forest products. By definition
most of the forests harvested in Canada are old growth.
Why is the minister sitting in silence while foreign lobbyists
denigrate our forest products?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Home Depot has made it clear that the
company wishes to support the well managed, scientifically based
certification process. In fact this is a new process that the
industry is going through. This being the case, Canadian
companies are well placed to continue to compete effectively in
the U.S. market.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is not taking this issue seriously. We
have heard all this before. The government cannot just cross its
fingers and muddle its way through. This is an organized
campaign directed specifically at Canadian forest products.
Why is the minister sitting in silence while an orchestrated
campaign against our number one export earner is gearing up?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister is not sitting in silence.
The minister and the Minister for International Trade are
watching these developments quite closely. They want to make sure
that our products continue to have that kind of access into the
United States.
This certification process is one that is new to the industry.
It is one that will benefit the industry overall. We will
continue to have access into that market.
* * *
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the public contracts awarded to Renald Cloutier, the
Prime Minister's personal contractor, not only were untendered,
they did not follow other normal rules either.
For example, the RCMP guard post was built in November and
December 1998, but the municipal building permit shows it was not
applied for until after this work was done. As well, there was
no environmental assessment of the road construction even though
the Prime Minister's neighbours believe it could contaminate
their local water supply.
Can the minister explain why these rules were broken when
matters relating to the Prime Minister are supposed to bear the
closest public scrutiny as his conflict of interest code says?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my hon. colleague that no
Treasury Board guidelines were broken. Policy was followed.
What I indicated previously is the Prime Minister built a home.
He had his own private driveway. He did not need this driveway.
The RCMP requested the driveway be built. The RCMP requested
this individual build it for security reasons. That is why it
was granted.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal government and the ministers continue to
insist that Mr. Cloutier was retained for his work since he was
on site and met their security criteria. If security was such an
important consideration in selecting Mr. Cloutier to work on the
Prime Minister's home, then why was Mr. Cloutier allowed to turn
around and subcontract the sensitive work to two other companies,
Continental Asphalt and Mario Gélinas?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not have the details of all the contracts here. What I can
tell my hon. colleague is what I told him previously on what the
RCMP's responsibility is. It is for the security of the Prime
Minister of Canada. That is why the road was built. They
requested that this individual for security reasons be hired. He
was and we followed government guidelines.
* * *
SWISSAIR FLIGHT 111
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The cost of the Swissair 111 investigation has now reached $62
million and is rising. The costs are totally absorbed by the
coast guard, the RCMP and the military. As a result, the
operations for the RCMP, the military and the coast guard are
being reduced. Also they have been denied new equipment because
of this, they are told.
It has not affected the construction of the Prime Minister's
private driveway.
1150
Is the government asking the manufacturers of the aircraft, the
airline and the other governments involved to help cover these
costs?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
interesting question.
I would like to point out to the listening public that Canada
has an international agreement. We are totally responsible for
the costs that are incurred for any safety transportation
investigation within the parameters of our domain.
As a result, yes, a tremendous amount of dollars has been
devoted to this investigation and there will probably be more.
This government has committed itself to keep on, within the
realms of human ability and technology, to determine the cause of
this terrible tragedy.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, that brings up a couple of other questions we should
think about.
If there are a series of crashes, what happens to the budgets of
the RCMP, the military and the coast guard? If we are not asking
the other parties to pay, will the government assure the coast
guard, the military and the RCMP that their budgets will not
suffer as a result of this crash? Will the government also treat
it like the Saguenay flood or the Quebec ice storm and provide
the funding for these operations so their services are not
compromised?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we can jump to
conclusions here and stipulate that as a member of a team,
everyone will contribute in their own way.
I would like to point out that Swissair has been most generous
with many of the families of the victims. It has contributed
quite a few million dollars to this entire enterprise.
As far as the United States is concerned, we do not have any
final decisions yet regarding its contribution toward the rental
of vast amounts of equipment and technology.
* * *
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, environmental groups across the country this week
organized endangered species action days to draw attention to the
fact that Canada still does not have an effective endangered
species law.
We know that this area involves provincial jurisdictions, but I
want to ask the Minister of the Environment what the Government
of Canada is doing to protect our wildlife species which are now
at risk.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, all those on this
side of the House, others on the other side of the House and all
of those who demonstrated yesterday on their day of action for
their concern about species at risk.
Because of human activity and its impact on the environment, it
is obvious that we need legislation to protect species at risk. I
hope to bring in legislation before we recess this summer.
In the meantime, I have been consulting with stakeholders across
this country, with business and industry, farmers, environmental
NGOs, as well as with my provincial counterparts to see how we
can build a national safety net of protection for species at
risk. Much of the authority falls within the provincial and
territorial jurisdiction.
We have laws in place now to protect species but there will be a
new law.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a study by a private Saskatchewan group reveals that
since 1984 North Dakota and Montana farmers have received between
50 and 75 cents a bushel more for their wheat than Canadian
farmers. These losses amount to billions of dollars to western
farmers. What will the government do to make up for these losses?
I would say, open the wheat board books and give farmers a
choice to market their own grain.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the big city boy will attempt to offer
some information about farms.
The authors of the particular report the hon. member refers to
have overstated U.S. prices and have understated Canadian Wheat
Board prices. The results of that study are inconclusive. The
authors used selective vision of each country's grain handling
and transportation systems. Their pricing methodology does not
allow for an accurate price comparison between the two countries.
That is what he is basing his question on.
* * *
[Translation]
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Treasury Board's Government Contracts Regulations are very
clear: when a manager awards a contract without a call for
tender, he must justify in writing his application of one of the
four exceptions provided in the regulations.
1155
If that was in fact done, could the Deputy Prime Minister table
in this House the written justification for the fact that a
public contract was awarded without call for tender by the
government to the contractor who built the Prime Minister's
cottage?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will look into the hon. member's question. There may be
security issues. I will do my best to provide a full response
to the member's request.
* * *
[English]
HIGHWAYS
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
controversial Cobequid Pass toll highway in Nova Scotia has
undergone another change. Now the financing has been sold to an
American company controlled by a Japanese bank. As we know, over
$27 million in federal government money went into the Cobequid
highway, one of the Atlantic toll roads that use federal funds to
turn tidy private profits.
Will the government now admit that our national highways policy
is to put roads into private hands and send the profits offshore?
What a disgrace. Canadians want to know what the government is
going to do about it.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that
we have a definite position regarding toll highways. It has
already been clearly announced in the House that as far as the
government is concerned, for any highway designated as part of
the Trans-Canada Highway, if tolls are to be considered, it must
be in conjunction with the Minister of Transport. The final
decision regarding that would be made by the Minister of
Transport.
The highways are within the jurisdiction of the provincial
governments, but whenever moneys go from the federal coffers to
the provincial coffers for that purpose, that is for the building
of the Trans-Canada Highway—
The Speaker: The hon. member for South Shore.
* * *
SWISSAIR FLIGHT 111
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Cumberland—Colchester asked an extremely important
question on the coast guard. What the minister did not answer
was that the only thing that kept the coast guard's budget from
being cut sooner in 1998 was the crash of Swissair flight 111. If
this tragedy had not occurred, the coast guard boats would have
been laid up much earlier in the fall of 1998.
The issue here is safety. Is it the Minister of Transport's
intent to ignore the safety of our fishermen and boaters in the
same way the minister of defence ignored the safety of our
pilots?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for the coast guard. He has
made it very clear in the House many times that there will be no
compromising of safety with regard to the coast guard. Whether it
is the Swissair disaster or any other disaster, the coast guard
is there to protect the safety of people and seagoing vessels.
We will do that, absolutely.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister for International Trade. Trade negotiations will be
started by the WTO in Seattle later this year. Economic sectors
and issues of great interest to Canadians will be discussed
there. What opportunity will Canadians have to provide their
input into the preparation for these important negotiations?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada places utmost importance on public consultations. It just
makes common sense. On February 8 the Minister for International
Trade launched the consultations. The Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food has had consultations with agriculture
groups. In a few weeks the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade will be travelling to certain parts of
Canada to get people's views on these important consultations.
The Minister for International Trade met with his provincial
counterparts earlier this year. They are determined to get the
views of Canadians prior to going to Geneva to negotiate.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The Canadian live cattle export industry, which is worth about
two and a half billion dollars a year, is already being targeted
by the Americans. Senator Baucus and his cohorts in the American
agricultural lobby are rubbing their hands in glee at the
possibility that they will be able to justify or rationalize a
countervail based on Bill C-55.
Why is the minister so eager to sacrifice western Canadian
farmers to the greater glory of Ted Rogers?
1200
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are there for every sector. We are not sacrificing
the interests of any sector for any other sector. We are there
for all Canadians.
I ask my hon. friend why he is so interested in sacrificing the
interests of Canada in support of Senator Baucus and the people
of the United States. Why do he and his party not stand up for
Canada and show a unified state and not help the Americans to put
unwarranted pressure against a policy that is in the interest of
all Canadians and all Canada?
Stand up for Canada, Reform Party. Don't act on behalf of the
Americans.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the replies
given by the Minister of Human Resources Development in response
to our recent questions on the hardship caused by his system
suggest that he is already in possession of the evaluation
report prepared by his officials and that he is secretly working
on the changes that need to be made.
Why is the Minister of Human Resources Development waiting so
long to table this much anticipated report? Is it because he is
about to bow to our arguments and address the flaws of a system
that hurts both the unemployed and the workers?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can give the assurance that
the report is not causing any hardship. Unlike the Bloc
Quebecois, which loves to talk about hardship, about victims,
about people who are exploited, we do not talk—
An hon. member: Did you look at the report?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Yes, absolutely. I read the report. It
was submitted to me.
I can give the assurance that it will be tabled, as required by
law, in the first 30 days of the session, which means by March
19.
But I do not work in secret. I can tell the House one thing: as
a government, we make sure we properly measure the impact of our
employment insurance reform, the results of which we will soon
be sharing with this House.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the 35
year old Sea King helicopters continue to be plagued with
problems causing legitimate concern for the safety of those who
fly in them.
I now have parents of a pilot writing to me expressing concern
for their son who flies these aircraft.
The minister indicated yesterday that he would bring in a
strategy to replace the Sea Kings very shortly. Defence
procurement is a very large, complex business with many steps
involved.
Will the minister advise the House as to what precise stage in
the procurement process is the maritime helicopter project at
present?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are going through all the requirements
for the helicopters because whatever we get to replace the Sea
King I want to make sure that it meets our operational needs and
is cost efficient and affordable for Canadians.
I am anxious to bring this forward as quickly as we possibly
can, but meanwhile we will have the Sea Kings with us for a few
more years. We will make sure that in fact they are well
maintained; they are overhauled as they need to be and as they
have been in the past; and they are safe for our crews to fly.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The aboriginal human resource development strategy will change
the way training programs and services are offered to aboriginal
Canadians. Criticism of this includes a loss of services to off
reserve aboriginal groups such as the Canadian Métis Council and
the Native Council of Nova Scotia.
Could the minister guarantee that both groups would receive
funding in the future equivalent to what they received under the
regional bilateral agreement?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank
the member for supporting our bilateral agreements. They have
improved a great deal the situation of aboriginal Canadians it
terms of the labour market.
I would like to commend the wonderful work, extraordinary work,
of the Secretary of State for Children and Youth who has involved
herself a lot in those bilateral agreements.
As to the other group that the member is referring to, I am
confident that we will be able to come to conclusions on this
very important file shortly.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order.
I had an earlier question from a member from the P.C. Party on a
judge in New Brunswick. I have an answer, if members would like
me to read it into the record, that in fact the minister has
received a letter from the Attorney General of New Brunswick and
that she will be making a decision soon on whether to appoint a
new judge in New Brunswick.
The Deputy Speaker: I trust the information is
satisfactory to all hon. members.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1205
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to
present to the House, in both official languages, the report of
the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary
Association to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe, OSCE, parliamentary assembly standing committee in
Vienna, Austria, on January 14, 1999.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 60th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
membership and associate membership of the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage, and I should like to move concurrence at this
time.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
JUSTICE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have two petitions to present. The first one calls upon
parliament to enact legislation that will reduce our inhumanity
to the families of victims, restore some truth in sentencing and
stop gambling away lives on the chance that a multiple murderer
or serial predator will not attack again.
We believe Bill C-251 will prevent multiple murderers and
rapists from getting one sentence for multiple offences and
narrow the gap between justice and our justice system.
SEXUAL OFFENDERS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition I have to present brings the number of names
up to 30,000 now. All the individuals who signed the petition
indicate that the last sexual assault committed in the community
of Abbotsford was committed by a dangerous repeat offender with
63 prior convictions.
Therefore they ask that Sumas Community Correctional Centre
officials should have the right to refuse violent, repeat and
dangerous offenders who could pose a danger to society and that
habitual violent offenders and sexual predators should not be
allowed to reside at Sumas correctional centre any longer.
We need more answers to this and government has to address this
issue promptly.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by
hundreds of people from across the city of Toronto praying that
parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the
year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a
binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
The standing committee has filed a report urging the abolition
of nuclear weapons, and I am pleased to present this petition of
citizens supporting that position.
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the citizens of Laurentides, and the riding of Manicouagan, who
believe sincerely in equality between men and women and in
justice, I have the honour to table two petitions demanding that
the federal government withdraw its appeal against the public
service pay equity decision and give effect to the court ruling
that it ensure pay equity for its employees.
1210
These petitions combine with those presented this week by my
Bloc Quebecois colleagues.
[English]
BILL C-68
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to present a petition on behalf of the people
of Dauphin—Swan River.
The petitioners request that parliament repeal Bill C-68 to
redirect the hundreds of millions of tax dollars being wasted on
licensing responsible farm gun owners and that the money be put
into places like women's crisis centres, the prevention of crime
and other means of fighting organized crime on the streets.
* * *
[Translation]
GLOBALIZATION
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour today to table a petition.
The petitioners are greatly distressed by the widening gap
between rich and poor, and ask Parliament to form a
parliamentary committee whose mandate would be to examine
Canadian parliamentarians' ability to reduce the gap between
rich and poor in the new context created by globalization and to
propose specific solutions.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): On a point
of order, Mr. Speaker.
Discussions and negotiations have been held involving
representatives of all parties in the House, and I think that,
if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent of the
House for the following motion to travel: I move:
That Group “A”: seven members of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and of the Sub-committee
on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment be
authorized to travel to Quebec, Montreal and St. Hyacinthe from
March 21-16, 1999;
and Group “B”: seven members of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and of the Sub-committee
on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment be
authorized to travel to St. John's, Halifax and Fredericton from
March 21-26, 1999 in order to hold public hearings in relation to
its examination of Canada's trade objectives and the forthcoming
agenda of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and examination of
Canada's priority interests in the FTAA process, and that the
necessary staff do accompany the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the government whip have the unanimous
consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
PRIVILEGE
PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, this is a question of privilege of which I gave
notice prior to question period. It deals specifically with a
communiqué released from the Minister of Public Works yesterday,
a media advisory that again bypassed the House on a matter of
concern to the membership and I would suggest a matter of real
concern, namely the costly renovation of Parliament Hill.
The media communiqué announces that the minister has chosen to
name the parliamentary building advisory council, a body that
will report to the minister and is a creation of the minister and
the government. Yet this body has really no mandate from the
House.
In particular, the manner in which it has been presented is
again very consistent with the government's approach, that is one
in which ministerial announcements are made through the media
prior to any notice or any meaningful debate on the floor of the
House of Commons.
This has become far too regular an occurrence that we see here
every day. There is literally no meaningful debate between
government ministers and members of the House on these important
matters.
The same occurs at the committee level where most ministers
rarely appear and, if they do, they do so armed with an army of
departmental officials.
1215
I am sure members will agree that this furthers the
marginalization of this House with respect to any sort of
meaningful interaction between elected members in opposition and
ministers of the crown. I am very concerned that this ongoing
trend which is being perpetrated by this government continues.
With respect to this particular communique, the minister
announced that “The Council will be composed of senior officials
from the main stakeholder organizations, including the House of
Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament” and the other
organizations which are mentioned.
The Senate is represented quite ably by the hon. Sharon
Carstairs. I have absolutely no objection to her participation.
I am sure she will do an excellent job representing the interests
of the senators. Yet there is no elected member on this council.
There is no member of the House on Commons on this body and I
would respectfully suggest that that is a breach of the
privileges of members of this House. There is not one elected
official. This should be of concern to every member of this
House. A retired table officer representing elected officers is
an affront to this House.
I do not say this to belittle in any way the appointments that
have been made. In fact these particular individuals are very
able, very honourable and long serving members of this Chamber.
However, I would again respectfully suggest to the hon. Chair
that it is not acceptable to members of the House that we not be
permitted to have an elected official on this council. It is
simply not acceptable that there not be a member of this House to
at least offset the presence of a member of the other place.
This is yet another botched attempt by the minister. It
reflects again, quite accurately, the poor relations which exist
between the public service and members of this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move a motion to refer the matter
of the minister's actions to the committee, if you find that
there is a prima facie case, and there is no mandate from this
House and no one has the right to represent that they may act for
members of this House without specific authority from this House.
To do so, I suggest, would be contemptible.
It is not up to the minister to determine who represents this
House. This may be an appropriate matter to take to the Board of
Internal Economy. We have had difficulties with respect to this
entire matter in the past. This ongoing trend of communiques to
the press prior to announcements being made in this House, I
suggest, is similarly very much an affront to the dignity and the
privileges that members of this House should come to expect from
the government.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect to the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who raises this question of
privilege and in the absence of the minister, I wonder if you
might reserve the decision until he has had an opportunity to
give his side of the story, if that might be of interest to the
Chair.
I can assure the House and particularly the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough that no marginalization was
intended by this incident nor by any others previously.
With respect to the question of the dignity and privileges of
the House, I think the hon. member who is an officer of the House
on the government side, the hon. Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, has a record which stands well. He is well
recognized for his respect of the House and all its membership.
The Deputy Speaker: I am quite prepared to deal with
the matter immediately. The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has raised two issues.
First, he has alleged some kind of grievance that the minister
made an announcement outside the House which, in the view of the
hon. member, ought to have been made in the House. While many
members might express some sympathy with the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough on that point, I do not think it
constitutes a breach of the privileges of members of this House
in any way. Indeed it has been a common practice for many, many
years.
I can recall sitting in the gallery in the sixties, hearing
members making exactly the same complaint. While that is about
35 years ago, I do not think there has been any change. If
anything, there are more announcements made outside the House
today than there were then.
Mr. Peter MacKay: That's wrong.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member says it is wrong and
we can shed crocodile tears about it, but I am afraid that on
that point he does not have a question of privilege.
With respect to the second point the member raised as to the
representation of the House on this group—and I noticed he
referred to it as an advisory committee—it does not appear that
it is a group, by its name anyway, which has any power of
decision in respect of the premises of this place.
1220
Once again, as the government House leader has pointed out so
ably from his seat, he is advising the minister. In the
circumstances, since it is an advisory committee, I do not see
how the privileges of any hon. member are impinged upon by the
appointment of such an advisory committee, no matter what its
membership.
Therefore, I do not feel that the hon. member has raised a
question of privilege that I can entertain at this time and I
decline to treat it as such. If he wishes to raise the matter, I
know he can go to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee and I
am sure that the patient chairman of that committee will hear him
out.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, an
act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign
periodical publishers, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is most unfortunate that this government has brought closure
to this debate. As we know, there are many members in the House
who would like to speak on this matter.
Reform is really the only party that is standing up for working
Canadians and for working Canadians who may end up losing their
jobs, because we know that Bill C-55 is about putting Canadian
jobs at risk.
Previously I had indicated that I would read into the record two
letters, one of which was received from the United States Senate.
However, there is no time for that, so I will read a couple of
paragraphs.
The letter was sent to Charlene Barshefsky, the U.S. trade
representative, from the United States Senate and was signed by
William Roth, Jr., the chairman, and Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, the ranking Democrat.
The letter reads:
The effect of the Canadian government's action is twofold. First,
if enacted, Bill C-55 would plainly violate the letter and the
spirit of the GATT 1994 and the WTO agreement on dispute
settlement. The proposed legislation would put U.S. publishers
at a distinct commercial disadvantage—a disadvantage that U.S.
publishers had a right to expect would be eliminated by virtue of
our WTO rights and the Appellate Body's ruling.
Second, it would undermine what many of us viewed, at the time
we considered legislation implementing the Uruguay Round
agreements, to be the linchpin of the WTO system. It would be
ironic if Canada, which has been a leader in promoting a
rules-based international trading system, the creation of the
WTO, and the current dispute settlement model, were to undermine
the benefits of that system for the United States, Canada and
other WTO members by blaming the Appellate Body's ruling in this
instance.
I would like to read the last paragraph of a letter sent by
Charles Rangel, ranking Democrat, and Bill Archer, chairman of
the committee on ways and means of the House of
Representatives, to our Canadian ambassador to the United States,
Mr. Raymond Chrétien.
The letter reads:
Ambassador Barshefsky and her staff have indicated that if the
Government of Canada presses for passage of this bill, the United
States will retaliate by withdrawing NAFTA trade concessions.
While we hope and expect that this issue can be resolved without
resorting to such measures, we are committed to ensuring that
U.S. publishers have fair access to the Canadian market, just as
Canada's publishers do in the U.S. market. Therefore, we
strongly oppose C-55 and will support Ambassador Barshefsky's
intention to withdraw trade benefits if the bill is enacted.
Surely the banana case in Europe should be an eye-opener for
this government. There is a protectionist mood brewing in
Washington these days which makes it difficult for the president
to get the fast tracked authority he needs for the next round of
WTO negotiations for the free trade agreement of the Americas.
The people of this country should know that the last time
tariffs were raised during a deflationary period was in the
1930s, prior to the Great Depression. At that time the
Smoot-Hawley Act raised tariffs to over 40% on imported
industrial goods, adding to already high agricultural tariffs.
One nation after another retaliated by raising their own trade
barriers. Under the impact of higher tariffs, competitive
devaluation and heavy-handed financial controls throughout the
world, the flow of international trade shrank drastically in 1931
and 1932. We all know what happened.
1225
We also learned today that the deputy ministers of Canadian
Heritage and International Trade are meeting with their
counterparts in Washington to stave off retaliation. Why are the
deputy ministers of Finance and Industry not involved?
If the government is really serious about the proposals under
discussion it should have sent those officials as well. If the
government is serious, the involvement of the departments of
Finance and Industry are essential.
As we know, the United States' trade representative has at her
disposal a powerful weapon for retaliation. That weapon is
section 301 of the U.S. trade act. Under this section, the U.S.
trade representative can announce a detailed list of areas for
trade retaliation with a 30-day period for comment. She can do
this when a trading partner presses forward with what she deems
unfair trade practice.
The last paragraph indicates that if Bill C-55 is voted on in
this House and passed this upcoming Monday, the U.S. trade
representative could announce that list on March 15 and
retaliation could take effect no later than April 15, which is
just over a month away.
The U.S. trade representative also has options under the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade
Agreement, as well as appeal to the World Trade Organization.
Who in this government will be responsible and accountable if
trade retaliations do occur, with billions of dollars involved
and with tens of thousands of Canadians losing their jobs?
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today at third reading of Bill C-55, an act
respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical
publishers.
The purpose of this bill is to restrict access to Canada's
advertising market to Canadian magazines. The bill would
prevent access to the Canadian advertising market by foreign
publishers.
It is important to point out, however, that this is not in any
way an attempt to prohibit the sale of foreign magazines in
Canada. Through Bill C-55, the Canadian government is seeking to
protect a cultural sector, in this case, magazines.
The Tassé commission on magazines and Heritage Canada studies
have shown that the arrival of split run magazines on the
Canadian market would substantially reduce the advertising
revenues of Canadian magazines and thus imperil this cultural
sector.
The impact on the Quebec market of allowing foreign magazines to
supply advertising services would not be as great. The
behaviour of Quebeckers in this sector is similar to their
behaviour when it comes to television, which is to show a
preference for what Quebec produces.
It is true, however, that certain major magazines in Quebec are
produced by corporations with large interests in the anglophone
sector and that francophone magazines could therefore be hurt
indirectly by any weakening of the anglophone market.
The Americans have reacted to the federal government's
announcement that it intends to introduce a bill to limit the
advertising market to Canadian publishers only by announcing
their intention to retaliate with $1 billion worth of measures
against the textile, steel and plastics industries, among
others. This is of considerable concern to the companies in
question.
It must be remembered that total advertising sales of Canadian
magazines for 1994-95 were $521 million, of which $385 million
was for English language periodicals and $94 million for French
language periodicals.
So the Americans are greatly overestimating their potential
losses if the measure proposed today were found to be illegal by
the WTO and were maintained by Canada, or if it were to become a
cultural protection measure under NAFTA, which would entitle the
United States to impose compensatory measures if Canada decided
to maintain it after such a decision.
Since some of our industries do fear U.S. reprisals, it would be
worthwhile determining exactly what mechanisms govern the
international trading rules. This is all the more important
because there are new developments in this area daily.
At the present time, a trade dispute is going on between the
Americans and the European Union in connection with bananas.
What is pitting the one against the other involves aspects which
might cast some light for us on this periodicals issue.
The U.S. laid a complaint before the World Trade Organization
claiming that the European Union was giving its former colonies
a preferential tariff in the banana market, contrary to the WTO
agreements.
The WTO decided for the U.S. in this matter, so the European
Union re-examined its measures in order to bring them into line
with the international trade rules.
1230
The United States reaction to implementation of the European
measure was to impose reprisals against Europe under section 301
of the Trade Act, which allows the Americans to impose trade
sanctions on behalf of companies whose business has suffered a
negative impact from any such measure.
The European Community is appealing the very existence of this
section 301 before the WTO and, according to reports, Canada
will be taking the side of Europe before the international
tribunal. It will, therefore, be highly informative to see how
the WTO interprets section 301 of the American Trade Act.
It will also be interesting to see how the WTO dispute
settlement panel will rule on the dispute over bananas between
the United States and Europe.
Canada too passed a measure, Bill C-103, to protect its
periodical sector, and the WTO considered it illegal. Canada
complied with the decision of the international panel by
withdrawing the legislation. Bill C-55 is, in the opinion of
government experts, legislation that will protect this sector
and comply with international trade rules.
Obviously, everything must be done to avoid trade wars that
benefit no one. The Bloc congratulates the Minister of Canadian
Heritage's initiative in proposing this amendment, which
provides that the bill will come into force under an order in
council.
This legislative provision demonstrates the good faith of the
federal government in its negotiations with its American
colleagues, and the Bloc Quebecois strongly hopes that American
trade representatives seize the olive branch tendered.
Basically, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill because it is
part of the legislative and regulatory framework necessary to
protect cultural diversity. Although the measure involves
trade, its effect is to protect a cultural sector, that of
magazines.
In its statement in support of the bill, the Association of
Canadian Broadcasters expressed very clearly its concern that,
if Canada were to lose the battle on this issue, of little
financial consequence to the Americans, the defeat would mean
the beginning of the end of Canadian and Quebec measures to
promote culture.
It would be the first of a series of measures that would bring
the Americans to use their human and financial resources to
dismantle Canadian rules on content, on property and on direct
and indirect support by the state to the cultural sector. These
rules are deemed by the Americans to be harmful to their
entertainment industry.
Many observers believe that if Americans are targeting the
Canadian magazine sector, it is because their real objective is
a different one. This is very obvious. They are acting in this
fashion primarily to alleviate the concerns of their voters, who
are worried about their very unfavourable trade balance. Many
Americans also think that the United States is the loser in the
free trade agreement signed first with Canada and then with
Mexico.
Moreover, let us not forget that the American entertainment
industry has never accepted the cultural exemption included in
the free trade agreement and then in NAFTA.
Considering that audiovisual exports rank second in the United
States, and that Hollywood producers are major contributors to
the election fund of the Democratic Party, it is easy to see why
American trade policy officials are condemning Canadian cultural
policies so strongly.
Americans may also be targeting the upcoming negotiations of the
World Trade Organization, which are scheduled to begin in
November, in Seattle.
They want France in particular to understand that there is no
question of another stunt like the one it almost pulled off
during negotiation of the WTO services accord when, because of
its insistence that there be a clause in the accord to exclude
audiovisual products, negotiations ended without culture being
included.
Furthermore, Charlene Barshevsky, the U.S. trade secretary, told
Congress in January that the United States' goal with respect to
international trade with Canada is access for American magazines
to the Canadian advertising market and to other entertainment
media or industries on the Canadian market.
The Americans want to see the entertainment sector included in
the WTO millennium accords negotiated next fall.
1235
Bill C-55 allows them to get their message across to the world.
However, they already occupy a large part of the world's culture
and communications sector. The following is taken from the
report of the cultural industries sectoral advisory group on
international trade:
In fact, foreign competition dominates the Canadian cultural
market. Foreign businesses and products account for 45% of book
sales in Canada; 81% of English language consumer magazines on
newsstands and over 63% of magazine circulation revenue;
It goes on:
—79% of the retail sales of tapes, CDs, concerts, merchandise and
sheet music; 85% of the revenues from film distribution in
Canada;
We are talking about $165 million. I continue:
—between 94% and 97% of screen time in Canadian theatres; in
fact, it is here that the situation is worst, for Hollywood
studios have always treated Canada as though it were part of the
American market.
Some people like the former Minister for International Trade
have claimed that, in view of a major expansion in cultural
exports from Canada, protectionism is no longer in order and we
should go ahead and open our borders and review our cultural
policies.
But, as the working group on cultural industries of the foreign
affairs department has remarked, and rightly so:
If a culture is to prosper, it needs a distribution network and
an investment infrastructure. It should also provide a
stimulating environment for creators and artists.
Robert Pilon, the vice-president for public affairs of the
Association québécoise du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo,
put it more simply at the meeting held in Montreal a few days
ago on the Canadian cultural policy “In any economics 101
course, you learn that, before you can export, you have to be
able to produce”.
It is this creative capacity that needs to be protected and
nurtured in Quebec and in Canada. That does not mean we should
refrain from making major investments in the means that the
cultural industries in Quebec and Canada need to get a larger
share of world markets.
But if we give in now to American pressures, we run the risk of
becoming more vulnerable, with the direct consequence that all
industries in Quebec and Canada, cultural or otherwise, will be
more fragile. We would be left to wonder what the next target
would be.
Where culture and communications are concerned, Quebec and
Canada hold similar views. Both states are of the opinion that
every effort must be made to ensure total freedom for their
cultural policies.
It is a pity, however, that in Canada imposing a Canadian
identity and culture takes precedence over defending the
cultural interests of Quebec and of Canada. Thus the federal
government boasts about its lead role in promoting the concept
of cultural diversity in the world, yet is unable to recognize
the culture of Quebec and to give it pride of place beside that
of Canada, both domestically and in other countries.
Instead of the Canadian government bringing all of its human and
financial resources to bear on the importance of including a
cultural exemption clause in upcoming international trade
agreements, thus acknowledging Quebec, which shares its views on
this, as a valuable ally in this battle which is far from over,
it chose not to allow it to take part in last June's meeting of
ministers of culture in Ottawa.
The following is what Lise Bissonnette, former editorial writer
for Le Devoir, had to say on July 3, 1998 about the attitude of
the Minister of Heritage:
To reduce Quebec to cultural silence while pretending, in empty
resolutions in the House of Commons, and in the opportunistic
Calgary declaration, that its “culture” lends it a unique
character, is to be afraid of one's own shadow—
Allocating special status to Quebec would not even have created
a precedent, because it has been acknowledged as a
“participating government” for some fifteen years within
international francophone organizations, with the agreement of
Canada.
It is understandable that France would decline to be represented
in Ottawa, when Iceland was given the recognition denied to
Quebec. There are limits to how ridiculous things can be
allowed to get. If the international network of states is to
take concrete form, and move beyond mere empty words, the
concept of cultures must be based on reality, not on unrealities
such as these.
The credibility of the Canadian government is weakened by its
irrational fear of Quebec, and major changes in strategy are
called for, if it is to have the credibility to play a lead
role.
1240
Instead of changing its attitude and recognizing Quebec culture
and its representative, however, the federal government has gone
still further this week along the path of ridicule, by refusing
to take part in a working session organized by Paris—
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The debate is still on Bill C-55. Is that correct?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must ask the hon. member
for Longueuil to focus her remarks as much as possible on Bill
C-55, which is before the House today.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Madam Speaker, I would remind the
members opposite that I have been talking about Bill C-55 for a
while. I am providing facts to permit an understanding of the
government's attitude.
On July 3, 1998, Michel C. Auger of the Journal de Montréal, not
known as a sovereignist, commented in these terms on Ottawa's
attitude to Quebec in the meeting organized last summer by the
federal government, and I quote:
There was nothing to prevent Quebec from having the status at
this conference of participating government similar to the
arrangement at the francophone community summits.
In fact, Canada's position would be strengthened by the presence
of Quebec, if only to show pointedly that Canada is not afraid
of cultural diversity internally or externally.
However, as usual in Ottawa, they are incapable of seeing beyond
the end of the flag. By appearing just slightly more open, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage would have struck a vigorous blow
for federalism. Because, if there is one thing at the heart of
the sovereignist project, it is the right to cultural diversity.
So when globalization questions a number of the classic
arguments in favour of sovereignty, there is one argument that
takes on added importance and that is the right to defend one's
culture and one's right to difference internationally.
I would, in this same vein, like to quote Bernard Descôteaux,
the new head of the Devoir, who said this morning, and I quote:
But the presence of Quebec at meetings where cultural diversity
is addressed should be a given. This is an issue that has Quebec
truly concerned and rightly so. It has some viewpoints to offer
and an experience to share in what is constitutionally a
provincial area of jurisdiction.
This speaks volumes. Quebec and Canada have reached agreements
on crucial issues like immigration, manpower, housing, and, just
yesterday, the justice minister recognized Quebec's uniqueness
in the way it deals with young offenders. Why is the federal
government so intent in ignoring Quebec's culture?
Yet, Quebec's demands in the areas of culture and communications
date further back that its demands about manpower and were made
by every Quebec government.
In 1996, Daniel Johnson stated that Quebec should make its own
decisions regarding culture. This statement was reiterated by
Jean-Jacques Bertrand three years later. In 1971, Robert Bourassa
asked for a reallocation of powers in the area of culture. In
1991, the Allaire Report released by the Quebec Liberal Party
recommended that culture, communications and language should be
exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Once again, I remind my colleagues opposite that I am only
quoting from federalists.
In 1991, the Bélanger-Campeau report asked that Quebec be given,
and I quote:
By refusing to recognize Quebec's culture, by passing it off as
a mere regional culture within the Canada mosaic, by
light-heartedly mixing the cultural policy with propaganda, the
heritage minister and the federal government are giving
sovereignists a winning condition.
By stating that only independent nations have the right to
attend international events like the one that was held in
France, the Prime Minister is providing sovereignists with
another winning condition.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The matter of relevance has been raised once already. I am
listening to a volley of separatist mythical propaganda as
opposed to items relevant to the debate.
1245
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am listening carefully to
the speech of the hon. member for Longueuil. I am sure she is
about to make a link with Bill C-55.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Madam Speaker, you will see the link
very soon. I am getting there.
The federal government wants to become a leader in the promotion
of cultural diversity in the world. In order to establish its
own credibility, as Mrs. Bissonnette pointed out, it must
officially recognize the Quebec culture and give it the
necessary means to thrive all over the world. The fact is that
the Quebec culture already manages to do that, in spite of all
the trip ups of the federal government.
Again, I stress the importance of continuing the fight at the
international level to promote cultural diversity. The work has
not even begun yet. The next round of international negotiations
is to start in November.
Yet, neither in the budget nor in the government's statements
did I hear about the urgent need to act or did I see the
budgeting of any major initiative to promote cultural diversity
and to make sure that the respect of such diversity will become
a precondition in the millennium negotiations that will begin in
November.
I will conclude with a statement made in Paris by Agnès Maltais,
the Quebec Minister of Culture and Communications, on March 10:
In a recent book, a French philosopher wrote that, in the
context of globalization, it is in the interest of every country
to listen to the nations that have always had to live with the
profound and disturbing feeling of their own precariousness.
Indeed, there is now a risk of overall levelling throughout the
world.
Therefore, all peoples will ultimately feel what francophones in
America have been feeling for so long.
This is what led Alain Finkielkraut to use this eloquent line:
We are all Quebeckers.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today again to address Bill C-55 at third
reading.
Unlike the government, the New Democratic Party commitment to
preserving our culture in the face of American aggression is
solid. We support this bill. We support Canadian culture.
We are not happy with the reported government attempts,
including its last minute amendment, to delay the proclamation of
this bill. We are suspicious that the government will negotiate
our culture away behind closed doors, much as the Mulroney
Conservatives did in the free trade agreement.
We want stronger cultural protection under NAFTA, under the FTA,
under the WTO and under every trade agreement that Canada is
party to. These are not my thoughts alone.
I think it is important for us to understand the feelings of
Canadians around this bill and about their opinions relating to
the protection of cultural from Canadian foreign trade deals.
In the last week of February the standing committee on heritage
toured Canada to seek input from interested Canadians on cultural
policy and on such issues as Bill C-55. I think it is fitting
for me to include some of these comments in this presentation.
Anne Manuel from St. John's on February 22 said:
I'm not sure if everyone is familiar with this [bill]. Basically
what it is to do, if everything works as planned, is prevent
split-run magazines. Currently there are magazines like Sports
Illustrated coming out of the United States that have set
sizes for their advertising so that when they send the magazine
into Canada, all they do is approach an advertiser and say, hey,
we've got a half-page ad here, let's slip that Canadian ad right
in there. They've already paid for the material to the freelance
writer. They've already paid the managing editors and the
editors to make sure the article looks perfect, and the
photographer to make sure the photo looks perfect. They've
already done all of that, so all the bills are paid.
Then they approach Canadian advertisers and they say, well,
let's slip that Canadian ad in there and make Canadians think
that this is a Canadian magazine”. That's cheating, and that's
not helping culture in Canada. That's the sort of thing that
really does need federal support desperately. We need the federal
government to jump in and say that the foreign publishers
advertising services act is a good thing. That's where I really
support it.
Mr. Andrew Terris of Halifax is the chair of the Nova Scotia
Cultural Network.
I think he said it best of many of the presenters who expressed
concern over the enormous foreign control of our cultural
industries:
Here's what we don't control: 70% of the music on Canadian radio
stations is foreign; 60% of all English language television
programming is foreign; 70% of the Canadian book market is
imported. We don't control 83% of the news stand market for
magazines; 84% of the retail sales of sound recordings; 95% of
feature films screened in Canadian theatres; 86% of prime
time English language drama on Canadian television; and 75% of
prime time drama on French language television.
1250
His final comment was that we are an occupied country.
We all know that the Americans would never accept these kinds of
numbers in their market. It is imperative that the government of
this country take a very strong stand on these issues. These
have implications in terms of funding for culture, technology,
issues of trade liberalization, globalization, demographics and
the role of the federal government. This is the central issue in
terms of cultural policy in this country.
In Halifax we heard from Mr. James Lorimer of the Formac
Publishing Company. He made some important observations
regarding book and magazine publishing. He noted that Canadians
are constantly being pushed to the edge by American products.
In book publishing there has been this slow, sort of stealthy
retreat from a tough policy that was actually put in place by the
Conservative government when Marcel Masse was the minister of
communications. By far the biggest book publishing company in
Canada is owned by Bertelsmann. The federal government has just
allowed this to go ahead in the face of a policy that is supposed
to prevent indirect takeovers, to stand in the way of indirect
takeovers.
Mr. Lorimer continues to say that on the magazine side, we can
see what the Americans are doing with respect to Bill C-55. They
are again trying to keep that space open for themselves. They
are trying to hold back Canadian publishing in the magazine
industry.
Witness after witness spoke to us in profound and moving ways on
the importance of having direct government action to protect
culture and heritage in the changing world of global deal making.
In Montreal Mr. Peter Sandmark from the Independent Cinema and
Video Alliance said:
I had one comment because I haven't heard mentioned the
multilateral agreement on investment. Now if that were signed,
these co-production treaties that require foreign crews to hire
Canadian technicians and so on would be illegal if I understand
correctly the interpretation of it, and therefore foreign
productions could come in here and would not have to hire any
Canadians and could take advantage of tax credits because they
would have to be treated like nationals, same thing.
At the same meeting Mr. Robert Pilon, vice-president for public
affairs for the Quebec Alliance for the Record, Performance and
Video Industries, said:
If Canada gives in on this [magazine issue] today, we will all
suffer. If the Americans get a victory on this issue tomorrow
they will be attacking our support for the film sector, and the
day after that they will be challenging us on books and our
Canadian content on the radio.
These are individuals, business people, artists and all are
concerned Canadians. Their message to me was not to negotiate
behind closed doors. They want the federal government to protect
and promote Canadian culture and heritage.
Mr. Pilon had it right, magazines are the line in the sand. We
let it slip and we will all do it at our own peril.
Bill C-55 is a glimmer of hope, just a glimmer, that the
Liberals will for once follow their words with some actions.
If they are serious about protecting culture they should
proclaim this bill. If they want to protect our Canadian
industries they should go to the WTO table and do it there. They
should go back to our NAFTA partners and get the retaliation
sections of the cultural carve-out removed. They should work
with the other countries in favour of cultural exemptions, like
the Europeans, and take on the world.
Our artists are good at taking on the world. I hope our
government will follow the example.
1255
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-55, the
foreign publishers advertising services act. It is important for
Canada that we protect our publishing industry especially in
light of the things that are happening in the industry now with
global communications and especially the Internet. Pressure will
be enormous on all countries to protect their cultures especially
from the United States which is the leader in the Internet
revolution.
We agree that the Canadian magazine industry needs to be
enhanced and encouraged. On the other hand, we are a trading
nation. If we restrict other countries from trading in Canada
under the terms of our trade agreements then we must expect the
retaliation which is now threatened.
There is a fundamental difference in the way the Americans look
at this situation and the way we in Canada look at it. In the
U.S. this is just a business deal. It is just part of doing
business. In Canada it is a cultural issue. Unfortunately our
trade agreements are trade, not cultural. There is a great
debate now in Canada on whether the Americans can retaliate
against many of our industries. I am not at all convinced that
they cannot retaliate against us under the terms and conditions
of our trade agreements which we did sign and should comply with.
My support for this bill will depend on the assurance of the
minister that our industries will be protected. So far I am not
at all convinced of that situation.
In my riding we have steel plants, plastics plants, forestry
industries and textile factories, all targeted industries. A
trade war is not appealing to me or the people of my riding which
is an area of high unemployment where it is tough to generate new
jobs and create employment. Even though the government has
assured us there are protections under the terms and conditions
of the agreements, the delays in action by the government send a
completely different signal to me and certainly shakes my
confidence.
I agree that we should have a negotiated settlement prior to the
implementation of this bill so we can avoid any of these trade
wars that have been discussed. Canada has responded to other
complaints from the Americans and we have had to adjust our trade
tariff codes, our postal rates, et cetera.
There is no argument about Canadian culture that it must be
protected, but if we sign trade agreements we must comply with
those terms. In this case interpretations differ depending on
who we listen to. While we must stand up for Canadian culture we
must again face the terms and conditions of our agreements. To
Americans this is a business deal, to Canadians it is a cultural
sovereignty issue.
The minister stood here today and called the Americans bullies.
I take exception to that. I do not think they are bullies. I
think they are using the tools entrenched in the agreement that
we agreed to at the time we signed it. agreement.
In October 1997 the World Trade Organization said Canada was
wrong. It told us to change our excise tax and tariffs. Canada
was given until October 1998 to get our policy in line with the
general agreement on services or face retaliation. We are not
always right and in this case we were wrong.
In 1995 the government introduced the original Bill C-103 which
did not pass the test. Now we are trying it again with Bill C-55
and there is controversy over whether it will be subjected to the
same retaliation and action by the U.S. The U.S. ambassador has
threatened a billion dollars in trade retaliation in textiles,
steel, plastics and wood.
The assurances by the minister are not very convincing. While
she says Canada is safe in this issue, she has already announced
a delay in the implementation of the bill in her statements and
her officials are marching off to Washington to renegotiate this
deal in advance. That makes me very nervous.
The Prime Minister was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen as
saying: “We think we can justify it in front of the World Trade
Organization”. That does not instil much confidence in me. When
he says “we think we can justify it” I think maybe our jobs in
steel, textiles, forestry and plastics are safe. It hits home in
Cumberland—Colchester because all those industries are
represented in my riding and are major employers.
Cherubini Steel is a brand new company but is projected to
deliver 90% of its products to the United States. Will it ever
get started if this happens? Stanfield's clothing, a brand name
known all over the world, has been in business for 100 years.
1300
Many mills have a tradition of shipping their wood products to
the United States. Poly Cello Plastics, Ropak Can-Am and
Canadian Polymer, all industries in the plastics business, would
ship many of their products to the United States. Does the Prime
Minister's statement “we think we can justify it” give them
confidence? I do not think so. I would not want my job
depending on the statement “we think we can justify it”. It is
just not good enough.
The Conservatives have been consistent in support of the
Canadian magazine industry. We even supported it at second
reading of this bill. But my vote will depend on the confidence
in the minister, the resulting actions in the next few days and
the results of those negotiations in the U.S.
There is another thing that does not instil a whole lot of
confidence in me. An article in today's National Post
which says that top bureaucrats were dispatched to D.C. to avert
a trade war. We have not even passed the bill and we are trying
to avert a trade war.
Another statement by the minister of international trade is “We
are willing to entertain various options that both protect our
mission statement but also address the American concerns. I
think we should be doing this”. This does not instil confidence
in me. It certainly does not instil confidence in industries in
the targeted areas or their employees.
We are not playing games here. This is a billion dollars worth
of business. By saying we think we can justify it in front of
the World Trade Organization is just not enough.
Again, my support for this bill will ultimately depend on the
confidence and the assurances of the minister and the Prime
Minister. So far, neither of them has given me the confidence to
vote yes on this bill. I am not saying that I will vote no, but
so far there has been nothing to convince me to vote yes.
I resent the attitude of the government. The insinuation is
that anybody who questions or opposes this is not a supporter of
the Canadian magazine industry or is not a supporter of Canadian
culture. That is not true. We are talking about a bill. We are
not talking about an industry. If we vote against the bill, we
are not voting against an industry. We are not voting against
Canadian culture. We are voting against a bill which we think
was drafted improperly and will result in retaliation.
It is obvious that the government is apprehensive about its
position on this just by its actions and concerns. Based on
previous rulings against Canada in the World Trade Organization,
comments by the Prime Minister that we think we can justify it
are not enough.
Regarding any actions by the minister of heritage, again Madam
Speaker, I ask you, would you want your job depending on someone
saying “we think we can justify it”?
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened with a lot of interest to
the member across the way. He said that he wanted to hear
something that would convince him, that he is not sure.
Two weeks ago, the standing committee on agriculture went to
Washington. We met with Congress and the Senate. We discussed
with them what we perceive Canada's position is going to be with
the WTO.
The member opposite says that he wants to be convinced. I want
him to think this way. Right now with the Americans running
advertisements through split-run magazines, what they are doing
is testing the waters before we go to these trade negotiations.
What we are doing right now with Bill C-55 is showing the
Americans that Canada is not a pushover. That would be a good
reason.
Mr. Bill Casey: Madam Speaker, that is a reason.
The things that make me nervous on the other hand are that the
Prime Minister did not come out and say, “We can defend this in
front of the World Trade Organization. We are right on this. We
can stand firm”. He said, “We think we can justify it in front
of the WTO”. That does not instil confidence in me.
It does not instil confidence in me that today two top
bureaucrats were dispatched to Washington to avert a trade war.
Two deputy ministers, an almost unheard of precedent, are there
now trying to divert an action by the U.S. that has not even been
started yet.
I do not know whether this has ever happened before. It
certainly does not do a thing to instil confidence in me. In my
riding of Cumberland—Colchester, we cannot afford to play games
with jobs in the steel industry, the forestry industry, the
plastics industry and the textiles industry. We cannot afford to
be testing it and saying we think we can justify it. It just is
not good enough.
1305
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, following on the vein of that question and the answer
from the member for Cumberland—Colchester, has he given serious
thought to the way in which the WTO is presently working? Has he
seen the way in which the Americans are operating with respect to
the banana case and the way in which they are treating the
Europeans in picking off one industry after another as a way of
advancing their trade interests in a way that does not make the
international trade system work very well?
Does he not think that in these circumstances we as Canadians
have to stand up and say this is an important cultural issue for
us, this is an important dimension of what we are trying to do
and tell our American friends, “You would not put up with
dumping things in your jurisdiction”. This is a form of dumping
magazines into Canada. We are saying to them, “What we are
asking for here, putting it in trade terms, is nothing more than
a decent level playing field. You talk that way all the time.
You ask for a level playing field. Give us a level playing
field”. That is what we are saying, yet they do not seem to
want to do it in these trade negotiations. They always want to
have the upper hand.
I remember that George Will, one of those big correspondents in
the United States, said that free trade is something that ranks
somewhere between Christianity and jogging, as something much
talked about and very little practised. That is the way the
Americans approach this. They do not believe in free trade when
it is coming into their markets; they believe in free trade when
it is coming into our markets or other markets.
This is a very important issue for Canada. I know the member
understands that. I would urge him to consider that we should
not be put off by the Americans in this respect. I think we will
have allies in Europe now because of the banana war. We will
have other allies who recognize that this type of hardball tactic
that is presently being resorted to will not make the WTO work
and in fact will help destroy it.
Would the hon. member give some consideration to that?
Mr. Bill Casey: Madam Speaker, the Americans are using
the tools entrenched in the agreements that we all agreed to. If
we are wrong, we are wrong and we have been proven wrong before.
I am not saying we are wrong, but I question that we are right.
I was encouraged this morning by the Minister of Canadian
Heritage who spoke on this issue. She acknowledged that this was
a cultural issue involved with a business agreement. If I
remember correctly she said that they were trying to organize a
group of countries to start dealing with cultural issues and
establish cultural agreements.
That is the problem here. We have a cultural issue in a
business agreement, in a business arrangement. We do not have a
cultural agreement. If we want a cultural agreement, we should
negotiate one. The minister acknowledged and admitted this
morning that we have not done that and we do not have one.
With that in mind, we should remember that this is a business
agreement and we all have to live up to the terms and conditions
of the agreement.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, following up on that, I noticed that during his
intervention the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale was
trying to turn things around by suggesting that the Americans in
retaliating in the so-called banana war against the Europeans are
somehow putting the WTO at risk. I suggest what is putting the
WTO at great risk is countries which do not adhere to rulings of
the WTO, countries that go completely contrary to the thrust of a
ruling.
We as the sovereign nation of Canada enter into trade agreements
and a dispute arises. Then the dispute is taken to the WTO for a
ruling, as it was in this particular case. The WTO ruled on it
and now we try to do an end run around the ruling.
That is what is happening with the case of bananas in Europe and
with the magazine issue here which is before the House again in
Bill C-55. I suggest that what is really putting the World Trade
Organization at risk is countries that do not adhere to the
rulings.
Would the hon. member comment further on that?
Mr. Bill Casey: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
I would say that if we go into agreements which give us
benefits, and certainly these agreements have given us great
benefits, we sign the agreements.
We agree to adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreements.
We cannot be sore losers if it is proven that we have
contravened the agreements. This happened in the previous ruling
on this very issue.
1310
I am not questioning the importance of the magazine industry in
Canada or the importance of the cultural issue aspect of this,
but we have signed an agreement. We have agreed to the terms and
conditions. We would hold them to the terms and conditions of an
agreement and we do it every day in tribunals.
What really concerns me is the obvious apprehension on the
government side that it has developed a bill that is going to
cause a lot of retaliation. We can see it in the government's
words and actions. When the government said it was going to delay
the implementation of the bill, when it said it was sending
deputy ministers to the U.S. to avert a trade war, this screamed
to me that we have a problem. Jobs in Cumberland—Colchester are
at risk. The government had better make sure that it is right and
that we are complying with the terms and conditions and that
retaliation will not happen.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for
Cumberland—Colchester. He made a number of comments with respect
to confidence and levels of confidence.
I heard the minister this morning speak very eloquently in terms
of her position and the government's position with respect to
this bill. From my perspective and I think the perspective of
many members in this House, it underscored the fact that there is
a high degree of confidence and we can proceed in this manner in
a way that is meaningful and fitting for all Canadians. That is
important to note.
Does the hon. member agree that there are times when we need,
from a cultural perspective, to ensure that our cultural
interests are defended and ensured? Does the member also agree
that in this case the Americans, with bullying tactics, are
trying to undermine that cultural perspective?
Mr. Bill Casey: Madam Speaker, I would hope that the
government of my country would use the tools entrenched in the
agreement to seek the best possible terms under any agreement we
signed. I take exception to the word bullying, or the attitude of
bullying. I do not agree that the Americans are bullying. I
think they are using the terms and conditions and if they cannot
use them, they will be proven wrong.
Our minister and our Prime Minister are not showing confidence
in their own positions. Again I refer to the story this morning
about two top bureaucrats being dispatched to Washington to avert
a trade war over a bill we have not yet voted on. The minister
is already acknowledging and admitting we are in trouble on this
issue. She has also previously announced that she will delay the
implementation of the bill even if it is passed. Why would the
government be doing this? Why would the minister be delaying and
running scared if we were not in jeopardy?
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I see there are only another two minutes or so to speak
on this matter. I am sorry I do not have the opportunity to speak
for a longer period of time.
Let me pick up on the thread of what is being discussed about
the trade war aspect of this bill. We have to bear in mind that
these are very serious issues being raised in respect of trade
matters. This government has a very proactive policy in respect
of the trade aspects of it.
Members will recall that last year the minister herself called a
meeting of culture ministers from around the world. They met
here precisely to discuss this issue, diversity in international
trade and how we can keep our cultural diversity in an
interdependent world. I think the member will agree with me that
this is extremely important as we go into this increasingly
integrated world. That is why we have done that.
That is why we are trying to collaborate with other like-minded
states in this area. That is why the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade will be having hearings
across the country to determine what the interests of Canadians
are as we go into these negotiations. The hon. member could sit
in on some of the committee discussions to hear from our cultural
communities who are telling us we need a stronger stance in
international trade.
We recognize that the rules are not what we would like them to
be. We have to go into these WTO negotiations recognizing this.
I have met with members of the cultural communities in my riding
and across the country. They are saying that the Government of
Canada is doing the right thing with Bill C-55. We recognize it
is necessary to protect our magazines if we are going to have
informed political discussion in this country.
1315
When somebody asks me why I am in favour of Bill C-55 I say I am
in favour for the same reason that I am in favour of gun control
and of a health care system.
If it were nothing but American magazines being read in this
country we would not have either of those measures to protect
Canadian citizens because we would not be able to discuss them in
the intelligent, in-depth way in which we should have the
opportunity. That is why we are in favour of this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order
made Monday, March 8, 1999, it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose
of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
[Translation]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday,
March 15, 1999 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think the House would be ready to call it 1.30 p.m. so
we could commence private members' hour immediately and members
could probably go home 15 minutes early.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
COMPETITION ACT
The House resumed from March 10 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998 (negative
option marketing), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill
C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act.
The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton who introduced the bill has
done Canadian consumers a great service in putting it forward.
This legislation would amend the Competition Act to restrict the
practice of negative option marketing in Canada.
We are all familiar with the irritation of opening telephone and
cable bills or other statements and seeing that we have been
charged for a service we did not ask for, we do not need and we
do not want.
When we ask about what is going on we are given the impression
that we are at fault. We are told we should have read the notice
and should have sent in a form saying no.
That is how negative option marketing works. Negative option
marketing is a sales strategy by which consumers are required to
expressly refuse a product or service to avoid receiving and
paying for it.
To put it another way, if there is no action to refuse the
service the recipient has bought it. I am sure there are
examples where negative option marketing works well and for the
benefit and convenience of both the customer and the supplier.
There are book and record clubs where the customer understands
and is happy to receive the monthly selection unless the reply
card is sent. The key to successful negative option arrangements
is making sure the consumer is well informed, has accurate
information and is not taken by surprise.
This points to why so many Canadians find negative option
marketing offensive. When they enter into an agreement with a
service provider for a particular package of services they do not
expect that the company would assume it can charge without their
consent. They are surprised to learn that companies think it is
okay to keep switching and adding services and raising the
charges until the customer says stop.
Negative option marketing reverses the customer-seller
relationship.
It imposes on the customer the requirement to react to avoid the
sale. It can take advantage of those of us who with busy lives
may find ourselves less vigilant with our financial affairs.
1320
An example can be made with day to day banking. Many of us like
to convenience of paying our bill by automatic debit. We do not
always take the time to go through the statements at the end of
the month. Weeks later when we do notice the charges have crept
up there is a good chance that we will let it go. After all, it
is only a few dollars. It is not worth the hassle. That is how
negative option marketing can take advantage of the average
Canadian. Intentionally or not, it can also take advantage of
vulnerable consumers.
The member's initiative allows the House to debate this issue.
He should be applauded for this. As part of this debate I would
like to suggest a few improvements to Bill C-393 that the member
may wish to consider.
I first propose that the bill focus on sectors of clear and
exclusive federal jurisdiction. This would mean making negative
option marketing a reviewable matter with applications with
specified regulated industries. The bill would then be broad
enough to encompass the major players while minimizing the
potential for a perception of overlap with provincial
jurisdiction.
Next, in its current form Bill C-393 contemplates making
negative action marketing a criminal offence. Members may recall
that in September of last year the House approved Bill C-20, an
act which also amended the Competition Act. One of the
innovations of that was the creation of a civil court process to
allow the Competition Bureau to deal more expeditiously with
cases involving misleading advertising and deceptive marketing
practices.
The government's position is that negative option marketing
rather than being subject to criminal law and processes should be
a matter reviewable by the civil courts.
Members may recall that in the 35th parliament the same hon.
member sponsored Bill C-216, an act to amend the Broadcast
Act. That bill was amended on third reading in the Senate to
respond to concerns of its possible effects on the viability of
French language broadcasting services. We will want to ensure
that Bill C-393 is crafted so as to anticipate and resolve these
types of concerns.
Another issue is notification. The bill contains provisions
requiring companies to send their customers a notice at least
once a month for three consecutive months before they can charge
for a new service. In the current form it appears that these
provisions would require a company to complete the triple
notification process and prevent it from charging for the service
for three months, even if the customer had agreed to it and
signed up for the service right away. I think this is an issue
we may wish to review.
The bill addresses several of the consumer issues raised in the
context of a much broader review of the financial sector. As
drafted, the bill has the potential for conflict with the
existing provisions of the Bank Act that deal with services
charges and notice requirements. We will undoubtedly address
these issues further as debate continues on this bill.
Bill C-393 is a worthwhile initiative that merits debate in the
House. It applies to certain federally regulated enterprises,
notably those subject to the Broadcast Act, the
Telecommunications Act and the Bank Act. It has the potential to
touch each Canadian consumer who subscribes to cable TV, uses a
telephone or has a bank account.
We look forward to collaborating with the hon. member on his
private member's bill. We want to demonstrate our support to
consumers and give a positive response to the many Canadians who
find negative option marketing offensive and unreasonable.
With respect to the financial sector, the task force on the
future of the Canadian financial services sector produced a
report that made consumer issues a major preoccupation of its 124
recommendations released to the Minister of Finance in September
of last year.
1325
The House of Commons finance committee and the Senate banking
committee have studied the report and also conducted public
hearings. The two committees supported many of the consumer
measures contained in the report and provided some additional
recommendations. The government is currently reviewing the advice
of these three bodies and will be setting out its response as
soon as possible.
The bill addresses several of the consumer issues raised in the
context of a much broader review of the financial sector. As
drafted, the bill has the potential of conflict with existing
provisions of the Bank Act dealing with service charges and
notice requirements.
As the bill proceeds through the House and through committee at
various stages we should consider how best to resolve the
conflicts between the bill's provisions and the existing consumer
protection provisions contained in the Bank Act as we debate this
bill in the House to make sure we have responded to the hon.
member for bringing this bill forward.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for
taking the courageous step in dealing with this bill.
This is an issue that many of us in the House have had to deal
with among our constituents. Our constituents have been very mad
and angry that they have had to be subjected to this bullying by
certain companies.
I draw to the attention of the House the issue of the cable
companies and the banks that tried through the back door to force
individuals, members of the public, to purchase goods and
services they were not interested in purchasing.
As the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton so eloquently mentions,
the adoption of Bill C-393 will mean that if a person does not
respond it means no purchase. I repeat, if a person does not
respond to what a company is trying to sell it means no purchase,
contrary to the situation we have now where consumers are simply
not protected.
The fact that this has never been dealt with before is
absolutely tragic. Given the actions by some large companies,
cable companies, telephone companies and banks in recent memory,
it is all the more important that this issue be dealt with as
soon as possible and that Bill C-393 gets expeditious passage
through the House of Commons for all the consumers who are not
protected by this consumer bullying that has potentially been
taking place.
Negative option billing means that if something is offered to a
person and they do not respond, they have bought it. Many people
do not know this. Sometimes they see their bill and all of a
sudden they are paying for things they never asked for. That is
the reason negative option billing has to be outlawed. That is
why our colleague from Sarnia—Lambton has put forth this
extremely important bill that should get expeditious passage
through the House of Commons and into law as soon as possible.
I am sure the Minister of Industry will look at this bill very
carefully and give it his full support not only in the House but
in public.
Negative option billing is also known by other names such as
tied selling, automatic renewal contract, all euphemisms for the
same thing. One can argue that tied selling actually violates
the Competition Act.
Section 52 of the Competition Act says that anyone who promotes
a product or business interest through representation to the
public that is false or misleading in any material respect is
guilty of an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment.
Section 52(4) specifically states that the general impression
conveyed by a representation, not just the literal meaning, shall
be taken into account in determining whether the representation
is false or misleading.
That is why Bill C-393 falls within the realm of the laws we
have today. That is why it is a reasonable law to be supported
and passed by the House expeditiously.
1330
Bill C-393 also would not apply to companies across the country.
It would apply specifically to federally regulated businesses,
such as banks, cable companies and telephone companies, companies
that have been engaging in or trying to engage in negative option
billing for quite some time. I will give some examples.
In 1997 the Toronto Dominion Bank employed a negative option
technique to deprive bank customers of their privacy. The
National Bank has reportedly used a similar scheme to sell
travellers' health insurance to existing customers by debiting
their accounts $9.95 a month.
We all know the action that was taken by the cable companies.
They told their customers that if they did not hear from them
over a certain period of time they were going to be forced to pay
for certain services. That was completely outrageous and should
never have been tolerated.
Bill C-393 addresses this important issue of the protection of
consumers across the country. Industry should not be afraid of
this. It should actually be applauding it because it would
improve competition. Without Bill C-393, negative option billing
allows companies, particularly large companies, to bully their
customers. Power is centralized in the hands of those companies.
In other words, negative option billing enables the large
companies to have greater power over their smaller counterparts.
That is not competition. That is called monopolization. And in
this country monopolization is outlawed.
Bill C-393 has a number of benefits. It would liberalize trade
in this country. It would provide protection for small
businesses, not unfairly. It would level the playing field
between small and large businesses. Above all else, it would
protect the public from being bullied by large companies that
seek to add profits to their coffers by virtue of trying to force
their customers, through surreptitious means, to purchase goods
which they are not interested in purchasing.
Again I would like to compliment the member for Sarnia—Lambton
for his leadership on this issue. He is going to get a lot of
support from this House. I am sure the Minister of Industry is
going to applaud this member for his leadership and work with him
to make sure this bill becomes a reality in the very near future
for Canadians everywhere.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-393, an act to amend the
Competition Act, 1998 (negative option marketing).
This bill is aimed at prohibiting negative option marketing,
which means billing consumers for products or services without
their express consent.
In fact, this bill proposes to amend the Competition Act to
prohibit such marketing practices by banks, trust companies,
credit unions as well as telecommunications and broadcasting
companies.
Should this bill be adopted, anyone who commits an offence under
the act would be subject to a fine of up to a maximum of
$100,000. The director of the Competition Bureau would be
required to submit an annual report on this issue. Moreover, the
governor in council may, by regulation, exempt any service that
needs to be exempted to remain competitive, for example, French
language broadcasting services.
I want to emphasize the fact that Bill C-393 is the member for
Sarnia—Lambton's third attempt to prohibit negative option
billing by cable companies. However, Bill C-393 differs from the
two previous attempts in that it goes beyond cable companies.
I would also like to give a brief overview of the history
surrounding the introduction of Bill C-393.
In 1994, the CRTC authorized six new English language and two
new French language broadcasting services. In 1995, cable
companies in English Canada withdrew certain broadcasting
services from the basic service and created an enlarged package
consisting of the services previously included with the basic
service and the new services they were offering, which had been
authorized by the CRTC.
Consumers reacted strongly to this disruption of their package.
Their reaction was described as a revolt at the time. They did
not appreciate the changes, nor did they appreciate the fact
that they had to pay more for services they already had and that
they had to pay for new services they did not want.
1335
They also did not appreciate having to make known their wish not
to subscribe to this new service, or find themselves subscribing
by default.
In 1996, the member for Sarnia—Lambton introduced Bill C-216, the
purpose of which was to amend the Broadcasting Act so as to
prohibit negative option billing in the broadcasting sector.
I would remind members that the Bloc Quebecois was in agreement
with the bill in principle, but that we were still opposed for
the following three reasons.
First, Bill C-216 represented interference in commercial
relations between businesses and consumers, a field of
provincial jurisdiction.
Second, the bill was impossible to enforce, there being no
technology for providing television on demand. In addition,
Bill C-216 would have required the explicit consent of all
subscribers for a new channel to be broadcast, which, to all
intents and purposes, would have prevented new channels from
starting up.
Third, the bill had a particularly unfortunate effect in Quebec,
where negative option billing is needed to ensure the widest
possible distribution of a broadcasting service, failing which
the service would be too expensive or would never get off the
ground.
For the record, Bill C-216 died on the Order Paper when the 1997
general election was called.
When a new parliament reconvened, the hon. member for
Sarnia—Lambton tried again and introduced Bill C-288 on November
25, 1997. Its goal was similar to that of Bill C-216, and its
content was almost identical. Unfortunately for him, the bill
was not a votable item.
And now we have Bill C-393, which was introduced on April 23,
1998, and is before the House. It also deals with negative
option marketing. But, as I said before, it is different from
the two previous bills in that it deals with much more than
cable television.
The Bloc Quebecois supports of the hon. member's proposal in
theory. Let me remind the House that the Quebec government has
passed a law banning negative option billing in Quebec.
But the Bloc Quebecois will oppose Bill C-393 for the three
following reasons.
First of all, the bill encroaches on Quebec jurisdiction in
matters of trade and contracts. As a matter of fact, the
Constitution provides that matters of contract, local trade and
consumer protection are under provincial jurisdiction.
The second reason we will vote against this bill is that the
CRTC already has the authority to ban negative option billing,
if it thinks it is in the public interest to use its authority
to do so.
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill because it
will help to reduce the authority of the CRTC and give the
Competition Bureau powers that could undermine Canadian
broadcasting policy, reduce consumer choice, increase rates and
put an end to the development of French broadcasting services
throughout Quebec and Canada.
I remind the House that consumers in Quebec made their position
about Bill C-216 known to the Senate committee.
In fact, I firmly believe that more than ever French speaking
viewers need the protection the CRTC can give them. Members have
to understand that Bill C-393 could prohibit every other
marketing method except pay per view television and could
particularly involve such limited distribution that no new
French language service would ever get off the ground.
It could deprive us of any new French channel. But even worse,
as my hon. colleague from Mercier put it, the French language
media must be allowed to live, not just to merely survive.
For all these good reasons, we will vote against this bill.
Still, I want to commend the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for
his perseverance, and he can be assured that the Bloc Quebecois
will also persevere in its opposition to his bill.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to offer my support for Bill C-393 proposed by the member
for Sarnia—Lambton. Negative option billing represents some of
the worst corporate behaviour imaginable. By saying that implied
consent should allow a company to change the general contractual
agreement between a company and an individual we are chucking out
a thousand years of common law, the part that says a deal is a
deal.
1340
Negative option billing negates one of the fundamental concepts
which I have always fought for as a writer and as a legislator,
which is that we should always safeguard the public's ability to
exercise informed consent when dealing with the world.
I am proud to add that this practice has already been dealt with
by the NDP government in British Columbia which amended its
consumer legislation to ban negative option billing in that
province.
The current bill proposes to amend not the Broadcasting Act, but
rather the Competition Act to ensure that negative option billing
is prohibited in all sectors under federal jurisdiction, not just
those regulated by the CRTC. Banning negative option billing is
a way of telling the providers of those federally regulated
services that they should never see the public as a pool of cash
to be dipped into whenever they need to boost profit margins.
Business should provide a service and if the public wants that
service and they can afford it, they can agree to buy it. If a
business wants to charge customers for a service it has to ask
them first, ask them nicely and make the sale by convincing them
that they need it or want it. It cannot change the rules in the
middle of the game without permission. It is just not fair.
Sadly we are dealing with this as a result of the other place
which sent back a bill just before the last election. As we
know, elections are of no concern to the other place. The fact
that this took place is a good example of why we need to abolish
the other place. The House of Commons said that negative option
billing should be banned. The Senate blocked our will.
Canadians suffer. The cycle has to go and I believe the other
place does too.
I well remember the public outrage in the winter of 1995 when
the cable companies introduced new specialty channels and
restructured their cable package lineups. I was offended that it
was suggested by the companies that they needed this
anti-consumer practice to support culture.
Canadian creators produce good work and people want it, so they
agree to buy it. Shame on the cable companies for trying to hide
behind artists while fleecing the public.
The CRTC allowed the practice in 1995 and this shows how out of
touch the CRTC has been.
I support regulation and protection for Canadian culture in the
broadcast and telecommunications industries by the CRTC. I
support regulation and protection for Canadian culture in
broadcasting and telecommunications, but it is evident that the
CRTC abandoned its role as a protector of citizens, the
consumers, when it allowed the cable companies to gouge Canadians
through negative option billing.
This failure also hurt the cable industry. When the new
channels were introduced in 1995 it was into a much more hostile
environment than the channel originators probably deserved simply
because people were so appalled at the negative option billing.
I am pleased to see the measure before us in this parliament and
pleased that the member has seen fit to include other federally
regulated industries in its scope. I agree with the hon. member
that we are also seeing the phone companies and some of the banks
testing the waters with these kinds of marketing schemes and it
needs to stop now.
We must remember that most federally regulated industries are
granted certain privileges to conduct business in a protected way
in this country and they provide essential services to the
economy and the people of Canada. In return for this privilege,
which often means they are guaranteed certain levels of profit as
well, they have a higher duty to conduct their business in an
ethical way. In some cases, the cable industry for example, the
profits are high.
I hope that with the change in focus to the Competition Act we
will see the Department of Industry start taking a role in
protecting consumers in Canada, not protecting corporate Canada.
When I say this I am referring to recent failures of the
department and the minister to protect cultural interests.
We have the loss of domestic control of large sections of the
publishing industry, a trend apparently encouraged by cabinet. We
have also seen unprecedented amounts of corporate concentration
in television and other media, all with the applause of Industry
Canada. I hope the passage of this bill will encourage a change
in the overall implementation of the Competition Act so as to
protect Canadian citizens and not just Conrad Black, Izzy Asper
and members of the Business Council on National Issues.
1345
I would like to go on record as supporting the previous concerns
expressed by the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
concerning the Competition Act. He expressed his longstanding
criticism of the act's ability to deal with pricing in the retail
gas market.
With the changing nature of the international economy and the
simultaneous trends of increased mergers and acquisitions, but
also the growing number of small businesses, we need a much more
active competition policy in this country to ensure that the
marketplace works well for consumers and for small business
owners.
On Monday my leader and I attended a press conference with
members of the small business community in Nova Scotia. They
raised very grave concerns about the impact of Sobey's assuming
control of 75% of the food wholesale market on the east coast.
The takeover of Oshawa Group by Sobey's controlled Empire Ltd.
would mean that small family restaurants and corner stores will
become price takers from one food wholesaler. That will hurt
them and it will hurt consumers.
It is a competition issue and it is a consumer issue. I think
it is time we made a comprehensive examination of the whole area.
As the member from Regina has said, we do not have one-tenth the
amount of competition legislation they have in the United States.
I am not saying necessarily that more is better but what we have
now obviously is not enough. And it is not working for anybody.
To return to where I started this afternoon, I just wanted to
indicate my support for the principle in the member's bill. I
hope it receives wide support from the House once again, and is
not again stalled by the unelected Senate.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to participate in today's debate on Bill C-393, an act to amend
the Competition Act, 1998, with respect to negative option
billing.
Negative option marketing is a deplorable practice, and we
should all support the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton in his
efforts to end this practice. In the case of broadcast services
distribution, this practice gave rise to two attempts to amend
the Broadcasting Act.
As a result of amendments in the other House, it was established
that negative option marketing should not be allowed, except to
facilitate the achievement of the broadcasting policy objectives
set out in the Broadcasting Act. We do not find the same
provisions and safeguards in this bill.
I appreciate that the member for Sarnia—Lambton introduced this
bill amending the Competition Act in order to extend its
application to banking and telecommunication services. However,
there is a risk. Introducing in the Competition Act new
regulatory rules that would also apply to broadcasting services
may result in conflicts with the Broadcasting Act, as passed by
Parliament in 1991.
The Broadcasting Act provides, and I quote “that the Canadian
broadcasting system constitutes a single system and that the
objectives of the broadcasting policy can best be achieved by
providing for the regulation and supervision of the Canadian
broadcasting system by a single independent public authority”,
namely the CRTC.
Any attempt to deal with a same matter in two different acts
with very different objectives can only lead to confusion and
court actions. The bottom line is that consumers are those who
might have to pay the price.
The Broadcasting Act provides, and I quote “The Canadian
broadcasting system should serve to safeguard, enrich and
strengthen cultural, political, social and economic fabric of
Canada”. Bill C-393 deals only with commercial and economic
aspects without any consideration for other cultural, political
and social aspects.
The practice of negative option marketing is no longer used by
the cable companies. People will recall the fuss raised in the
English language market. Consumers simply will not accept this
practice, and the cable television industry, which is faced with
increasing competition from satellites and wireless systems,
simply cannot use this any longer without major loss of
business.
However, the bill as it stands would prohibit marketing
practices that have been used successfully to introduce a broad
range of new French language services to the French language
market. Without this flexibility, no new French language service
could see the light of day, given the small size of the market.
1350
This experience with the French language market demonstrates two
things. First that, when properly used, the marketing practices
required for the introduction of new services are supported by
consumers. Second, the Broadcast Act states:
English and French language broadcasting, while sharing common
aspects, operate under different conditions and may have
different requirements.
Bill C-393 introduces a new regulatory power of the governor in
council in order to remove certain services from its application
for competitive reasons.
There are concerns that this new power will not be easily
reconciled with the CRTC's licensing powers.
Moreover, since the CRTC's licensing decisions can already be
appealed to the governor in council, the latter could find
himself in the position of having to deal with a single issue
under two different acts with very different objectives.
We must make sure we do not create a legislative dead end that
would delay or even prevent the introduction of new broadcasting
services that Canadians have a right to expect.
A case in point is the recent CRTC decision to grant a licence
to a new aboriginal service called The Aboriginal Peoples
Television Network.
Should Bill C-393 come into effect, I am afraid it might
jeopardize the introduction of this service by all cable
companies in the country.
The marketing of broadcasting services is an issue that must be
dealt with under the Broadcasting Act. This legislation provides
all the power and flexibility required to maintain a balance
between its objectives and consumer needs.
The bill's previous versions only dealt with discretionary
broadcasting services. The current version no longer makes that
distinction and could in fact prevent the CRTC from requiring
the distribution of broadcasting services under the terms and
conditions that it deems appropriate. Incidentally, this
provision was the one used by the CRTC to require the
distribution of a new aboriginal service, The Aboriginal Peoples
Television Network.
I listened to the various arguments put forth so far regarding
this bill. I agree that we must find a deterrent to the all the
practices that were described. However, having read the bill, I
come to the conclusion that, in some cases, it does not address
these concerns. For example, I do not see how it could prevent
the banks from using the negative option or a tacit reply from
its clients to provide personal information to a third party.
However, in other cases, I feel that the bill targets practices
that it was not meant to target. I am not sure that the
intention was to prevent the compulsory distribution of an
aboriginal service. Yet, this could well be the end result.
[English]
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-393, an act to amend the
Competition Act with respect to the prohibition of negative
option billing.
I would like to recognize the work of the member for
Sarnia—Lambton on this issue. I know he has worked tirelessly
in the interests of consumers. I respect any member of this
House who is prepared to champion an issue despite pressures from
within his or her own caucus to be a quiet and dutiful
backbencher.
This bill is designed to prohibit the practice by federally
regulated businesses such as banks, cable companies and telephone
companies of implied consent billing. It would restore the
traditional buyer-seller relationship that relies on the
consumers' explicit consent before they can be billed for a
product or service and would prohibit default billing of
consumers who do not absolutely decline a product or service. In
other words, it would put an end to what has been called negative
option billing.
It is clear that this bill has broad support among consumers
frustrated by negative option billing. In particular, there is
frustration with cable providers that bill automatically for a
new program unless the consumer expressly rejects the service.
Consumer groups have cited senior citizens as examples of people
who are often unaware that they have the choice of opting out of
the new service and are consequently billed for a program they do
not want and cannot afford. This is a source of frustration not
simply because of the financial costs but because it is deemed to
be a violation of an age-old relationship between buyers and
sellers.
It is clear that consumers are looking for protection from
negative option billing. The questions are simply: How do we
provide this protection? Should it come in the form of Bill
C-393, or can this be achieved through market based reforms? I
think a balance must be struck.
1355
Bill C-393 had its origins as Bill C-288 which would have
amended the Broadcasting Act to restrict negative option billing
by cable companies. These companies can currently act with
relative impunity as they are federally regulated regional
monopolies that are free from the normal constraints of a
competitive market. This new version of the bill is broader and
instead amends competition laws that apply to all federally
regulated industries.
The decision by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton to use the
Competition Act as a means by which to prohibit negative option
billing instead of making changes to the legislation that deals
directly with the perpetrators of this practice is troubling for
me.
Competition laws can profoundly restrict economic freedom and
market efficiency. The general move toward strengthening these
laws should be approached with caution.
This bill should not be seen as a mechanism by which to restrict
attempts made by companies wishing to expand their market share.
We must not allow our competition laws to grow steadily more
intrusive. We must act vigilantly to create competition through
deregulation of our industries in the interest of every Canadian
consumer.
The original purpose of this draft legislation in the form of
Bill C-288 was to amend the Broadcasting Act. This dealt much
more directly with the source of the problem and would be the
preferable course by which to protect consumers against negative
option billing.
Negative option billing is a practice common to federally
regulated industries because they enjoy market protection such
that they restrict or limit the consumers' ability to seek
alternative providers of a product or service. Therefore the
deregulation of federally legislated industries should be the
first step to eliminating negative option billing and other
practices that do not properly serve consumers.
The Reform Party recognizes the important role of government in
creating an economic environment with fair and transparent rules
that protect both consumers and businesses. Bill C-393 is a
band-aid solution made necessary by policies that assume
Canadians will watch anything if it is Canadian, but viewership
dictates something else.
Despite the CRTC's pursuing policies which in effect force
Canadians to view Canadian productions on cable, viewership for
Canadian programs remains about the same. I challenge Canadian
producers to offer programming that Canadians and people around
the world will want to view.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Madam
Speaker, this is the first time I have risen in this House with
the name of my new riding, because the name of Mirabel, the
former international airport, was added yesterday.
Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998, negative
option marketing, is intended to prohibit this practice, that
is invoicing for a good or a service the customer has not
expressly approved.
This bill proposes an amendment to the Competition Act and is
intended to prohibit this practice in the banking, trust
company, co-operative credit association, telecommunications and
broadcasting sectors. Contravention of this legislation could
result in the charge of no fine to a fine of $100,000.
The director of the competition bureau would be required to
report annually on this matter. The governor in council is
authorized to make regulations to exempt services that require
an exemption to remain competitive, for example, francophone
broadcasting services.
This is the background of this bill. C-393 is the third attempt
by the member for Sarnia—Lambton to prohibit negative option
billing in the cable sector. However, Bill C-393 differs from
its two predecessors because it gathers in much more than just
cable companies.
1400
In 1994, the CRTC authorized six new English language
broadcasting services and only two French language ones.
In 1995, Canada's anglophone cable companies withdrew certain
basic broadcast services and expanded the volume to include the
services previously distributed on the basic service and the new
services offered by the CRTC.
Consumers reacted vigorously to the upheaval in their schedules.
Their reaction was described as a revolt, but consumers did not
like anyone playing with the schedule, having to pay more for
services they had had previously and having to pay for services
they did not want.
They did not take kindly to having to refuse the new service, or
receive it by default otherwise.
In 1996, the member for Sarnia—Lambton introduced Bill C-216,
which was to amend the Broadcasting Act to prohibit negative
option billing by cable companies.
Although the Bloc Quebecois agreed with the bill in principle,
it was opposed to it for the following reasons: Bill C-216
represented interference in commercial relations between
businesses and consumers, a field of provincial jurisdiction;
the bill was impossible to enforce, there being no technology
for providing television on demand; the member's bill would have
required the explicit consent of all subscribers for a new
channel to be broadcast, which, to all intents and purposes,
prevented new channels from starting up.
The bill had a particularly unfortunate effect in Quebec, where
negative option billing is needed to ensure the widest possible
distribution of a broadcasting service, failing which the
service would be too expensive or would never get off the
ground.
The Senate amended the bill in order to protect the francophone
market. The bill died on the order paper when the 1997 general
election was called.
On November 25, 1997, the member for Sarnia—Lambton very laudably
went at it again, this time with Bill C-288. The purpose of this
bill was essentially the same as that of Bill C-216 and its
objectives were almost identical. At the time, the bill was not
made votable.
On April 23, 1998, the member for Sarnia—Lambton stubbornly, and
I mean this as a compliment, introduced Bill C-393, another bill
on negative option billing.
In the clause defining client, enterprise and service, the
member proposes that the bill also apply to banks, trust
companies, co-operative associations, broadcasting undertakings,
telecommunications undertakings, and insurance companies.
The bill says that certain services may be excluded by the
governor in council by regulation.
Section 53.1(2) sets out the procedures that will have to be
followed by businesses covered under this bill to make sure that
the client is fully informed of the nature of the new service,
of the date the new service is to begin, of its cost calculated
monthly and annually, of the fact that the new service is not
mandatory, of the fact that the client may obtain the new
service by signing a business reply card, and of any other
matter that may be prescribed.
Paragraph (b) of this section reads as follows:
Section 53.1(3) says that the prohibition does not apply where
the new service replaces another service for which the client
has already paid a similar or higher fee, or where the new
service is free of charge.
1405
Subsection 53.1(4) deals with offences and punishment. Fines
range from $0 to $100,000. This section also provides that
officers and directors of a corporation are considered party to
and guilty of the offence and liable to the punishment provided
for the offence.
Clause 2 gives the Attorney General of Canada the authority to
institute prosecutions. It requires the director of the
Competition Bureau to report annually concerning the number of
complaints received from the public, a description of the
complaints and proceedings undertaken under the Act. The report
must be tabled in both Houses.
Clause 4 gives the governor in council the authority to make
regulations for carrying out section 53, therefore allowing the
governor in council to exempt enterprises that would otherwise
come under the act, to allow them to remain competitive.
The rest of the bill provides for consequential amendments to
harmonize the Competition Act.
I remind the House that, under the Constitution, contracts,
local trade and consumer protection are areas of provincial
jurisdiction. I must stress this fact.
Under section 93 of the Canadian Constitution, which gives the
provinces authority over matters related to property and civil
law, contracts, local trade and consumer protection issues come
under provincial jurisdiction.
These powers enabled the introduction in the Civil Code of
Quebec of a provision on contract formulation, attached in part.
The powers given to provinces by the Constitution Act enabled
the Government of Quebec to pass the Consumers Protection Act,
which prohibits negative option marketing.
I will conclude by recalling the position of the Bloc Quebecois.
As I said earlier, our party agrees with the hon. member in
theory and points out that the Government of Quebec introduced
provisions prohibiting negative option marketing within the
boundaries of Quebec.
But the Bloc Quebecois still opposes Bill C-393 as it opposed
Bill C-216 and C-288, for the following reasons: this bill
intrudes into provincial jurisdiction over trade—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Unfortunately, I must
interrupt the hon. member, as his time is up.
[English]
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-393. I congratulate
the member for Sarnia—Lambton for his dedication to the issue of
consumer rights and for his perseverance in bringing the
legislation before the House.
Parliament has made substantial changes to the way we conduct
Private Members' Business. It is fair to say that it was the
passion and commitment of backbench MPs, such as the member for
Sarnia—Lambton displayed, that inspired parliament to make those
changes.
Like many MPs, my constituents have often expressed frustration
at unfair marketing practices that require them to expressly
decline new services in order to avoid being charged for them. It
is also important to remember that people who pay for services
they do not want are often the ones who can least afford it, such
as the elderly, young people, recent immigrants and those still
learning English or French.
The bill regulates federal institutions, but I will show how
insidious negative billing can be. For example, I have two
daughters in university who are both charged full fees that
include extra health care of $250 a year. Unless they line up at
a specific time on a specific day in a specific location and
prove they have extended health care through our family, they are
automatically charged that money. If they line up they get the
money back. Since many of the students are on student loans,
federal government money is being sucked up by the universities
on negative billing. That gets me very excited and that is why I
am in favour of the legislation.
Some minority groups and business people have also come forward
to argue in favour of negative option marketing. They offer good
reason to allow some form of limited negative option selling to
continue.
1410
These considerations deserve to be looked at closely, but this
debate also offers the opportunity to consider whether negative
option selling is the best method for achieving very laudable
cultural objectives. If consumers feel manipulated by negative
option practices, this can create resentment toward the cultural
product the practice is intended to benefit.
However, it is also clear that current negative option practices
are generally unfair to consumers. As legislators we have to do
a better job of protecting those interests. Bill C-393 is a very
good step in that direction.
Negative option billing relies on the legal concept of implied
consent. By not responding the consumer is deemed to have given
his or her consent. Some might argue that consumer pressure is
enough to end negative option practices. However, as Bill C-393
recognizes, most negative option selling occurs in industries
where there is little or no competition. Indeed unfair negative
option selling is much less likely to occur in competitive
markets because of the threat of losing customers.
I would like to see us all have a pair of shoes arrive from
Eaton's, for example, and then be billed a month later because we
did not send the shoes back and see how long that practice would
last.
Bill C-393 deals specifically with federally regulated
businesses such as banks, cable and telephone companies. Those
that argue “let the market do its work” are ignoring a central
fact of Canadian life. In banking, local telephone service and
cable television distribution, consumers are faced with limited
choices. Companies in these sectors do not always have to
consider consumer pressure because their customers have very few
options.
Let us look at the furor in 1995, which has been recognized by
other speakers, over the negative option billing by Canadian
cable companies. This elicited more phone calls into my
constituency office than any other issue has ever affected my
riding. Thousands of consumers were outraged. Cable companies
backed off at the time. Yet only a few short years later there
were reports that they were doing it again, using negative option
billing in regional markets.
No one on this side of the House wants the federal government to
exercise undue influence over the marketplace, but we have to ask
ourselves whether negative option billing further concentrates
market share with the dominant players.
It may be time for the legislation. Computer technology has
made it much easier for businesses such as the banks to quickly
and easily offer new services and change existing ones. Industry
Canada's office of consumer affairs pointed out in the 1996
discussion paper that negative option marketing had the potential
to be an important tool in the financial services sector. To
quote the report:
From a negative perspective these new technologies could allow
industry to profit by slipping new charges and services past
unsuspecting customers.
However, the report also pointed out:
The report also gives examples where negative option marketing
has worked reasonably well.
Bill C-393 takes these issues into consideration. It recognizes
that there may be situations where a consumer would benefit from
a negative option billing arrangement. However, for this to be
the case, consumers must be able to make informed decisions and
express consent.
Bill C-393 proposes certain steps for a negative option
marketing practice to be legal. The bill has received the
support of the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Public
Interest Advocacy Centre and the Insurance Brokers Association of
Canada.
There is no doubt that these measures enjoy widespread public
support. Consumers feel vulnerable to negative option tactics.
When this method of selling is used inappropriately it catches
them off guard. They are accustomed to business relationships
where no response means no purchase.
They believe they are safe in the understanding that unless they
give their consent no one can take money from their account or
add a charge to their monthly bill. As I have said, negative
option selling is sometimes used responsibly, but in cases where
it is used inappropriately consumers are being taken advantage
of.
By not responding to a solicitation the consumer is deemed to
have given his or her consent. How can the sender be sure that
their customer received the solicitation? What if the person is
away from home? What if the solicitation simply does not make it
into the customer's hands? If it does make it into their hands,
how is the consumer approached? Is the negative option included
with other information? Is the offer made at the beginning of
the document or at the end? Is it clear for everyone who reads
it?
These are all good questions. The debate over Bill C-393 offers
parliament and the federal government a useful opportunity to
explore them.
Since the controversy over negative option billing in the cable
industry little has been done to protect consumers from the
misuse of this marketing practice. On that occasion and on other
occasions consumers have spoken.
1415
They have said they do not want the responsibility of having to
thoroughly examine every document they receive in the mail, every
business trying to sell them a new product or service.
They do not want to be forced to phone in a response or mail a
reply card just to keep their own money. My daughters do not
want to have to line up in the cold to get their money back.
There are times when the practice is used appropriately for
worthwhile reasons. Let us deal with the misuse of negative
option marketing so that consumers can make informed choices.
If consumer resistance is not effective in stopping the misuse
of this practice, it is up to the members of this House to act in
their interests.
Bill C-393 offers us an opportunity. The member for
Sarnia—Lambton should be commended for bringing this issue
before the House.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak on this important initiative on the part of
the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.
He is to be congratulated for bringing to the attention of the
House a marketing practice many Canadians find offensive and for
giving the House the opportunity to express our concern and
support for the rights of Canadian consumers.
Many if not most Canadians dislike aggressive marketing tactics.
We dislike pushy sales techniques. It makes us uncomfortable to
have to hang up the phone on a telemarketer or to slam the door
in a salesman's face.
Aggressive sales tactics often succeed precisely because they
exploit our better nature.
[Translation]
The marketing practice dealt with in Bill C-393, negative option
marketing, may be a little bit more subtle than the tanned
salesman who shows up at your door, but it is just as aggressive
and intrusive. Negative option marketing means that a company
will send the consumer an offer saying that he must refuse it,
otherwise it will consider that he has accepted the offer. It
will then send him a bill or, if he are already a customer, add
the extra costs to his monthly bill.
[English]
Naturally many Canadians find this sales strategy more than a
little annoying. There they are sitting at home quietly minding
their own business and they are not safely out of reach of
businesses pushing products and services they do not need, do not
want and maybe cannot afford.
Why should Canadians be required to be eternally vigilant
against unsolicited sales?
[Translation]
There are negative option billing arrangements that satisfy both
the consumer and the business, for example in certain book or
record clubs, but generally these are contractual agreements in
which the rights and obligations of both parties are clearly set
out and where the consumer has all the information and knows
what to expect.
[English]
I hope this discussion finds support and solutions from the
House.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
[English]
It being 2.20 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.17 p.m.)