We know that Bill C-54 is at attempt to deliver on the many
promises for a federal law protecting personal information in
the private sector. But the title of the bill itself reads as
follows: “An act to support and promote electronic commerce by
protecting personal information that is collected, used or
disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of
electronic means to communicate or record information or
transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the
Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act”.
Bill C-54 is not a bill to protect personal information. It is a
bill that provides little protection for personal information in
the commercial sector alone. The essence of Bill C-54 is its
schedule, as my colleague from Chambly pointed out.
Its schedule is written in the conditional. We know the great
importance of words in legislative texts. People who are
governed by these laws say “No one is above the law, but we have
to have laws written with words”. So the wording and the
terminology of this bill are vital to those who have to
interpret it.
In this case, the schedule is written in the conditional, which
means it is only giving recommendations. We find “should,
could, would”.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you have a legal background, but
all young lawyers and students in the faculty of law watching us
know that in the first year law courses we are taught the
grammatical construction of laws. We learn to differentiate
between “may” and “shall”.
Bill C-54 does not even extend to the private sector the
principles governing the protection of personal information
under federal jurisdiction.
Section 5(2) of the Privacy Act provides that:
Since I have only two minutes left, I will have to slightly
change the rest of my speech and immediately move to my last two
points.
Bill C-54 is based on the voluntary CSA code. But let us take a
look at some reservations made regarding the bill by Quebec's
access to information commission, in its 1997-98 annual report.
The commission says, among other things:
The Bloc Quebecois feels that the tools provided in Bill
C-54 are ineffective, since the commissioner cannot issue orders,
but can only write reports. Second, ordinary citizens will have
to go to the federal court to solve disputes. Third, they can
only go to court once the commissioner has issued his report.
In conclusion, Bill C-54 will have little effect, since it will
create a long and complex process. Under the circumstances, how
can one claim that this bill will protect people? If it has no
effect, how can one claim that its purpose is to protect people?
The answer is obvious.
Bill C-54 is a major disappointment but should also be a matter
of concern, because it completely misses its main objective,
which is to protect personal information in the private sector
in a technological environment that puts this fundamental right
in jeopardy.
Not only does the bill as it now stands completely miss the
mark, but it is fundamentally at cross purposes with its
original purpose, since it puts the protection of personal
information on the back burner.
In fact, when one reads Bill C-54, one realizes that its purpose
is to promote electronic commerce while putting the right to
personal information protection on the back burner.
Actually, they could not have found a better title to describe
the real purpose of this bill than what we have here: an act to
support and promote electronic commerce. It is no longer
federal legislation to protect personal information in the
private sector, as Canadians and Quebeckers have been asking for
a long time, but rather a bill that puts the promotion of
electronic commerce well ahead of the protection of personal
information.
Bill C-54 as presented by the Minister of Industry adulterates
the initial objective and proves that the Liberal government has
decided to turn its back on its numerous promises of a federal
law to protect personal information in the private sector.
This attitude on the part of the federal government is all the
more disappointing because the need to pass such legislation in
Canada is more urgent than ever. The right to privacy is a
fundamental right and one which is undergoing unprecedented
attacks as we are entering the technological era where the old
adage about secrets always getting out still applies, but now
that happens even faster than before.
The severe threat to Canadians' right to privacy cannot be taken
lightly. The protection of that right is fundamental, if a true
democracy is to be retained.
The issue at stake is very clear: lack of respect for privacy is
a death blow to democracy as we know it.
A government which stops making every possible effort to protect
its citizens' right to the protection of their privacy is
opening up a dangerous Pandora's box, and it does not take a
genius to figure out what would happen next.
While I do not want to be excessively alarmist, we all
understand the value, for a terrorist group, that the list of
dozens of million of Canadian households grouped together
according to their ethnic origin would represent.
If such a list compiled by a direct marketing firm could be made
available, would we really be able, for example, to continue to
ensure the safety of our fellow citizens, whatever their ethnic
origin? Could we guarantee them that they would never be the
victims of senseless acts of terrorism? The answer is obvious.
Threats from terrorist groups are not the only ones in a society
where the right to privacy is no longer guaranteed.
There are other threats, more insidious but just as real.
Indeed, what should we think about the ethics of insurance
companies, which are increasingly eyeing the results of DNA
tests to eliminate or select clients likely to make serious
claims? Also, what about employers, who even want to use the
results of spot urine testing for drugs, illegal or not?
These examples are only the tip of the iceberg on what awaits
Canadians if the private sector, like the public sector, has
access to a lot of personal information that it can now connect
together, thanks to the explosion of new technological networks.
We will have a society where so-called personal information will
no longer exist and, consequently, where there will be no
privacy for anyone.
It is all the more obvious that Bill C-54 is inadequate to
protect privacy as it does not even extend to the private sector
the principles governing the protection of personal information
under federal jurisdiction. Indeed, section 5 of the Privacy Act
which governs the private sector states:
It should be noted that these important provisions, which should
be at the heart of Bill C-54, can only be found in the schedule
and written in the conditional, which means that they are mere
recommendations and nothing more.
As my Bloc colleagues did before me, I must say in conclusion
that Bill C-54 is not a bill protecting personal information and
our fellow citizens' fundamental right to privacy, but a bill
aimed at promoting electronic commerce by sacrificing Canadians'
privacy.
The amendment is basically that this House drop second reading
examination of Bill C-54 and return it to committee for
re-examination or drop it from the order paper entirely.
I disagree with this for one very simple reason. Bill C-54 is
undoubtedly the most important legislation that has come before
this House since this session of parliament commenced. Bill C-54
is legislation that deals with trying to bring some sort of
control in the way private industry uses personal information.
As Canadians we are all schooled in the idea that our religion,
colour, financial status, medical records should all be private.
The reality is in the commercial world more and more of this
information is becoming available. Bill C-54 attempts to address
this problem.
I have been very candid in my earlier remarks with respect to
Bill C-54 in saying I believe it is flawed. Bill C-54 does not
fully address all the concerns of personal information in the
marketplace. But because the issue is so important I think we
have to get this bill to committee as quickly as possible so that
the committee and the public can study the changes necessary to
create legislation that truly is workable in this field.
I will tell members what is at stake. I will try to be very
simple about it. What is at stake, from my point of view and
from what I have been able to see in my own experience, are lists
of personal information bought and sold not only here in Canada
but in the United States.
I pointed out that non-profit organizations and charitable
organizations in order to do fundraising efficiently give their
lists of donors to direct marketers in the United States.
I was lucky enough to obtain a list of donors of the
organizations that were giving their names to a particular
fundraiser in the United States. This list of names represents
various organizations engaged in various activities and is
available for money. People can buy these lists.
For example, it is possible to get a list of all the Canadian
Jewish donors in Canada, 70,000 names. One can get that list in
the United States. One can get a list of all those people who
have donated to planned parenthood or pro-abortion organizations.
One can get lists of people in Canada who are considered to be
wealthy, 500,000. I did not think there were that many wealthy
Canadians but according to this list in the United States there
are 500,000 wealthy Canadians. What is at stake here is what
happens if crime gets a hold of these names?
What a wonderful thing to know which households in Toronto,
Vancouver or Calgary are big donors of perhaps $5,000, $10,000 or
$20,000 a year to charities. Is that not just a perfect target
for criminal activity? Yet that can be bought in the United
States.
In the United States organizations rent their lists of names for
fundraising. Scientific American rents out its list so
people can use the subscriber list in order to identify people
who are likely to give to a scientific charity. One can imagine
that someone who has other agendas might find this list handy as
well, a list of medical practitioners for example. In the United
States one can rent a list of the March of Dimes, of Greenpeace.
As long as there are no controls on this type of information all
someone has to do is purchase personal information on our
citizens that this country is trying to protect. I do not
believe this legislation sufficiently addresses that problem. I
wish it did.
This is no time to fool around. We cannot leave it to the next
century. We have to do something about it now. The only way we
can do something about it now is to get it in committee and get
it examined by our colleagues. I wish it would be examined in
committee because I am not satisfied with the response from the
other parties here. It has been a dialogue between the Liberals
and the Bloc Quebecois. There has been almost no input from the
Conservatives, no input from the Reform Party and almost no input
from the NDP.
Perhaps if we can get this in committee where there is
representation by the other parties they will not be so willing
to sit silent on an issue that is probably one of the most
important issues facing this country today. Personal information
is marketable. It is big bucks. It is big business and it is all
about personal safety.
I look across to the other side and remember all the complaints
about the gun control legislation and the fear that because
people had to register their guns they would be targets of I do
know what. I guess the fear is that if a person had to register
their gun, it was known that the person had enough money to buy a
gun and would be a target of a break in. I do not know, but that
was one of the fears.
Right now, because of the lack of legislation in this area, we
can buy a list that tells us how much money is in that household.
We can buy a list that tells us what religion that household is.
We can buy a list that tells us how that household stands on
abortion.
I think the time is now to address this. We have to do it
urgently. It is one of the most important things before the
House and I thank the Bloc Quebecois for putting this amendment
forward so that I could speak again on this issue. But I am not
supporting the amendment because we have to move ahead now on
this legislation.
I heard the Liberal member who spoke before me say that the
protection of personal information is one of the most pressing
issues in our country. I agree with him on that point. In this
electronic age where Canadians and Quebeckers are linked through
computer systems at the office and in their home, it is indeed a
fundamental issue.
However, contrary to the member opposite, I do think that what's
worth doing is worth doing right.
It so happens that the bill put forward by the government is ill
conceived is a botched job, which contradicts what has already
been done in that area, and I would add what has already been
done right.
In the year and a half that I have been here, I have grown
accustomed to seeing the House of Commons ignore what exists in
the provinces, particularly in Quebec. I must remind members
that there is a law in Quebec that has been widely praised,
entitled an Act respecting the protection of personal
information in the private sector. Support for this legislation
is almost unanimous, and many people around the world have
expressed their admiration for this initiative.
It must also be noted that the Quebec government is the only
administration in North America that has a law to protect
personal information in the private sector, and it has had it
for four years. With this bill, it seems that the government has
completely ignored that fact.
The legislation is effective, but this does not matter. Since it
is in Quebec, the federal government chooses to ignore it.
The bill put forward by the government is aimed at promoting
electronic commerce, giving second billing to the protection of
privacy in the public sector. The government can make all the
philosophical speeches it wants saying in the most dramatic way
how important the protection of personal information is, the
fact remains that the main purpose of this bill is not to
protect privacy, but to promote electronic commerce. Let us not
kid ourselves, that is the objective of the bill.
Speaking of the bill, it would be interesting to look at some of
its provisions, in particularly clause 27, which deals with
regulations.
This is gibberish. Anyone listening might well wonder what I am
talking about, why it is so complicated. What it means is that
the government can amend this legislation without bringing it
back before the House, and this is quite serious.
Without consulting Parliament, the government can amend
something that the hon. member opposite might consider crucial
in Canada, which is the protection of personal information.
I remind the House that we already have in Quebec a piece of
legislation which is working very well. Why leave it to the
government to decide when it would have been easy to say: “There
is already an act in effect in Quebec. Let us leave it be and
not enforce Bill C-54 in Quebec”.
Let me also quote the 1996-97 annual report of Quebec's
Commission d'accès à l'information. I want to quote some
excerpts because this is a very important document.
This is an independent, non partisan organization that has a
high credibility in Quebec.
The annual report says:
The commission has examined the consequences of introducing
Canada-wide standards and legal principles regarding privacy on
the information highway. Under the terms of a proposal submitted
to the ministers responsible for setting up this highway, this
protection would be based on the voluntary code of practice
developed by the Canadian Standards Association.
It is the
commission's contention that, if implemented, this proposal
would represent a setback on the privacy issue in Quebec.
This contention is based on a comprehensive review of the CSA
code. There is good reason to be pleased with the Canadian
industry adopting such a code. This marks quite a breakthrough,
stemming from an interesting analysis of the OECD guidelines on
privacy. However, the CSA code does not meet the objectives of
the personal information protection system established under the
two Quebec laws, namely to guarantee to all citizens an
impartial and fair solution to any problem or conflict that may
arise with regard to the protection of this most important
aspect of one's privacy.
Therefore, the Commission suggested to the Quebec Minister of
Culture and Communications that she remind her counterparts that
Quebec has such a statutory system in place.
According to the Commission—
—the Quebec system is the only response to the challenges of the
information highway that respects the rights of citizens.
This is in Quebec. We must realize, of course, that the federal
government often pays little attention to what Quebec
organizations have to say. Therefore I will quote the federal
privacy commissioner, Mr. Bruce Phillips. I will read the
[English]
“Building Canada's Information Economy and Society” is
revealing in that it lends priority to economic issues over
social issues. As such, the focus on electronic commerce
precedes the goal of protecting personal information; the paper
also indicates that the federal government wants to engage
Canadians in a variety of network activities first and then
develop protection of privacy later.
[Translation]
After quoting all these authorities in the area of protection of
privacy, the Bloc Quebecois can only represent the consensus
that exists in Quebec and vote against Bill C-54.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1345
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I have had discussions with
representatives of all parties. I believe you would find consent
to defer the recorded division requested on the amendment of the
hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière to second reading
of Bill C-54 to the expiry of Government Orders on Tuesday,
October 27, 1998.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
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 second
time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, Canadian culture is our inheritance from
the past. It is our joy in daily lives and it is our gift to the
future.
Generations of Canadians who came before us made possible the
birth of Canadian television. They did so through extraordinary
artistic effort and through an act of national will.
Canadians who went before us made it possible for us to be a
world leader in the music industry.
[Translation]
In less that 10 days, I will be in Montreal for the ADISQ gala,
hosted by Céline Dion, who is known all over the world not only
for her talent, but also for her support of national cultures.
[English]
They did so through exceptional talent and through national
will.
Canadians who went before us made it possible for books by and
about Canadians to be published in Canada. They did so through
hard work and again through a collective national decision.
Generations of Canadians who went before us made it possible for
us to have our own magazine industry, to have stories about
Canadian information, ideas, news, art, talent, culture and
voices.
The results produced by those generations of Canadians are
really quite spectacular.
[Translation]
They worked hard to make Canada one of the countries most open
to foreign cultures, while building a strong cultural identity
that unites us all and shines throughout the world.
The sad reality, as world citizens, is that for the first time
in history the number of spoken languages is diminishing. This
reality should give us food for thought and raise the alarm. The
futures of our respective cultures and cultural diversity are at
stake.
1350
[English]
There were difficult and controversial decisions made by
previous governments and by previous members of parliament.
Those decisions were taken starting with the creation of a
national broadcasting system 60 years ago because successive
governments believed that culture is central to our identity.
They understood that culture is an element of individual,
community and national strength. They knew that culture speaks
to our heart, to our mind and to our soul as a country.
Today it is our turn as parliamentarians to rise once again to
the challenge. It is our turn to ensure the future flourishing
of Canadian magazines. It is our turn to show wise stewardship
over our cultural birthright and our future. It is our turn to
exercise an act of national will.
Magazines like Canadian Legion Magazine are important to
Canada. Magazines like Canadian Legion Magazine survive
because of the support of the government.
Bringing Canadian magazines to life requires an industry with
imagination, dedication and nerves of steel. Bringing Canadian
magazines to life entails a belief in cultural autonomy and a
love for the free flow of ideas. Bringing Canadian magazines to
life requires policies and actions by the Parliament of Canada.
In some ways the challenges that we face today are even more
daunting than those faced by previous parliaments. We live in a
more connected world. We live in a time when communication
barriers are falling everywhere. We live in a country that
thrives on exports and competition. And I repeat that we are the
most open country in the world for all cultures of the world. We
live in a world that thrives on exports and competition in which
technology is turning old thinking and old rules on their ears.
We live next door to the world's only remaining superpower and
dominant cultural influence.
A member asks why we are putting up barriers. We are not
putting up barriers. Canadian Legion is a magazine that
deserves the support of the government for its voice to be heard.
That does not prevent us from reading the American legion's
magazine, but we have an opportunity and a responsibility as the
Parliament of Canada to provide some space on the world's
cultural shelf for our stories to be written about and to be
heard.
We can walk into any magazine store in Canada and we will see
more American magazines available for sale than any other country
in the world. We are not putting up barriers but we reserve the
right as a country to have a small space for our own voice.
Part of the role of parliament is to make sure that this voice
is there for future generations. The law of the marketplace does
not respect the law of cultural diversity upon which this country
has been built and this party will continue to support until—
Mr. Charlie Penson: Promotional protection.
Hon. Sheila Copps: It is not promotional protection. The
challenge is to address those issues of globalization with real
solutions, not to snuff out the Canadian voices, not to fall prey
to the globalization trend of those who would say that there is
no difference between Canadian and American magazines, not to
fall into the trap of claiming that we are building barriers.
These same members of the Reform Party who are crying down
legislation that would help protect those Canadian voices are the
same members of parliament who want the government to support the
Canadian Legion Magazine. If there is anyone opposite who
does not want us to directly support the Canadian Legion
Magazine, I would dare them to stand in their place today, on
the eve of Remembrance Day, and tell us they are against the
support of the Canadian people to Legion Magazine. I do
not see anyone putting their name forward. The truth is—
An hon. member: How about censorship?
Hon. Sheila Copps: Nobody is talking about censorship.
This is not about censorship. This is about multiple voices in a
global world.
The truth is that it has never been easy to publish a Canadian
magazine. The first one was printed in 1792 by John Howe. The
very first magazine was the Nova Scotia Magazine and
Comprehensive Review of Literature, Politics, and News.
This magazine folded after three years because of high publishing
costs, a small domestic audience and the marketing power of far
more established publications imported from abroad.
1355
For 206 years Canadians have had to fight hard to ensure the
survival and growth of our nation's magazine industry.
I repeat to those who would twist and distort the truth, to
those who would sell out the Canadian magazines on the altar of
globalization, I want to reinforce the fact that Canada has the
most open cultural market in the world. More than 80% of the
magazines sold on our newsstands come from other countries.
Ninety-five per cent of those magazines are American magazines.
And we have no intention of stopping that. We want to see a
multiplicity of ideas.
The sale of U.S. magazines in Canada is far and away the largest
export of magazines to a single country in any country in the
world. There is no other nation that comes within a country mile
of our country when it comes to being open to magazines from
around the world. If that is protectionist, then I should be a
member of the Reform Party.
Some hon. members: No.
Hon. Sheila Copps: That is a thought that would even stop
me in my tracks.
This closed market that the Reform Party is talking about should
be underscored by the fact that in a small market like Canada
there are 71 American magazines with a Canadian circulation of
over 30,000.
An hon. member: They would not be there if Canadians did
not want them.
Hon. Sheila Copps: Of course. People are very much
entitled and open to subscribing to and receiving American
magazines. There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that
will stop that.
What this legislation will do is it will ensure that when my
daughter becomes a mother, her children will be able to read
stories about her country, her geography and her history. That
will be the legacy of this legislation. If that is
protectionist—
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member will resume after
question period. We will now begin Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
GENERATION XX YOUTH CENTRE
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Generation XX Youth Centre in Summerside has just won the 1998
Commonwealth Youth Service Award.
The Generation XX Youth Centre provides a gathering place and
programming for youth in a drug and alcohol free environment. The
centre was developed by a group of young people under the
guidance of Constable Mike Rioux of the Summerside police force.
Together they took an old building which in an earlier life had
been a curling club and a trade school and through hard work and
dedication to the cause transformed it into a concert hall and
Atlantic Canada's only indoor skateboarding facility.
The whole concept originated when a group of teenagers hanging
out in a Tim Horton's parking lot was asked to leave by the local
police. This was followed by the question “Where do you want us
to go?”
Constable Rioux then realized the problem. There was no place
for teenagers in Summerside to go. The rest, as they say, is
history.
Congratulations to the young people, manager Gordie Whitlock and
their mentor, Constable Rioux.
* * *
SYDNEY TAR PONDS
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when I was first elected five years ago, I visited the worst
environmental disaster in Canada, the Sydney tar ponds in Nova
Scotia. At that time I urged the environment minister to
implement a viable long term solution. Two weeks ago I returned
to Sydney to find little change. More than 15 years and over $70
million has been wasted and the people of Sydney are still
waiting for a resolution.
Yesterday another study was released which concluded that Sydney
residents have almost a 50% higher risk of cancer than the rest
of Nova Scotia. How much more evidence do federal and provincial
governments need to take action on this issue?
In addition, the people next to the coke oven site on Frederick
Street must be relocated. We would not live there, why should we
expect them to?
Cleaning up Sydney must be a priority. The time for studies is
over. The time for action is now.
* * *
1400
NORTH-SOUTH CENTRE OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
North-South Centre of the Council of Europe awards a prize to two
people for their outstanding achievement in human rights,
pluralistic democracy and global solidarity.
This year the north-south prize goes to Canada's Minister of
Foreign Affairs, thus recognizing his work for a treaty banning
the production, trade and use of landmines.
The chairman of the north-south centre calls the minister's
efforts “an outstanding and very practical contribution to the
protection of human rights in a north-south context”.
The other winner is Graca Machel of South Africa for her efforts
to protect children from the devastation of war in her native
Mozambique.
Tomorrow, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will receive from the
President of Portugal in the Portuguese parliament this
prestigious award. I invite members of the House to join me in
congratulating the award winners, Graca Machel and the Minister
of Foreign Affairs.
* * *
[Translation]
NORTH-SOUTH CENTRE OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, in
the Parliament of Portugal, the honourable Lloyd Axworthy,
Minister of Foreign Affairs, will receive the north-south prize
awarded by the Council of Europe—
The Speaker: I would remind the hon. member that we do not
usually mention the name of members. We must only mention their
title.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
Tomorrow, in the Parliament of Portugal, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs will receive the north-south prize awarded by the Council
of Europe.
This prize is awarded each year to two persons, from the
northern and southern hemispheres, who distinguished themselves
internationally by championing democracy, human rights and
solidarity around the world.
The minister has earned this prestigious honour for his
relentless effort to ban the production, storage and sale of
antipersonnel mines. All Canadians can be proud of his work.
I invite my colleagues in this House to join me in
congratulating the recipient of the 1998 north-south prize, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to tell the House and all Canadians of an
increasing economic gravity facing thousands of farmers in
western Canada.
In 1938 the sale of 26 bushels of wheat would clothe a farmer
for the winter. In 1998 it would take 206 bushels to clothe a
farmer for the winter. In 1938 the combined property tax to pay
the taxes on 640 acres of cultivated land would take a mere 273
bushels. Today on the same section of land it would take 1,443
bushels.
If this economic disaster area does not receive some immediate
help, the results will the threefold. First, there will be an
increase in abandoned farms. Second, there will be an increase
in bankruptcies and, third, there will be an increase in
financial foreclosures.
We must not turn our backs on—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair.
* * *
DANIELLE CAMPO
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate a fine Canadian
athlete from my riding. Danielle Campo, Tecumseh's 13 year old
superstar, set several new world records at the world
championships for swimmers with disabilities in Christchurch, New
Zealand, last week.
Danielle initially clocked a world record in the women's 50
metre freestyle heats and then bested her performance beating out
swimmers much older and much bigger than her to win the gold and
grab victory for Canada later that day. She has now gone on to
win three more gold medals for her team and for Canada.
This young woman's courage, hard work, determination and desire
in the face of limitations should be an example to us all as we
strive for our dream.
I ask members to join me in congratulating Danielle, her coach
Mike Moore, and all the Canadian athletes competing at the world
swimmers championships in Christchurch.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN NATIONAL
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, 3,000 CN employees read in the papers that they were
about to lose their jobs. This is a rather disrespectful, not to
say improper way to make such an announcement. In the meantime,
the federal transport and finance ministers expressed their
compassion not for the employees about to be laid off, but for
the company, stating that they understood the financial reasons
behind this decision.
1405
The Bloc Quebecois virulently decries the loss of these jobs at
CN and is shocked to see Paul Tellier, as president and CEO of
CN, let go of 3,000 workers just to please the market, 3,000
workers who have to take care of their families who will now be
facing insecurity and instability.
To quote the Quebec director of the Canadian Auto Workers, this
announcement is worse than a baseball bat. He is right, because
as we all know by now, swinging a baseball bat is the
government's way to show compassion.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH RESEARCH AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
next week is Health Research Awareness Week. I urge Liberals to
attend any of the events to be held across Canada during that
week. We hope Liberals can learn something about health
awareness.
The Prime Minister and his government must allow Canadians the
freedom to choose health products. Canadians do not want heavy
handed government regulations that classify as drugs things like
safe dietary supplements, functional foods and nutriceuticals.
Let us protect the freedom of choice for Canadians to choose
natural remedies and cures for healthy lifestyles. Canadians are
sick of the Liberal health care system that only deals with
people when they need medical treatment.
Canadians want our health system to help us be healthy. Good
health can prevent the need for costly medical treatment. We are
proud of the efforts of the Association of Canadian Teaching
Hospitals in sponsoring Health Research Awareness Week.
* * *
BRIAN MULRONEY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, he has
been called a pioneer on a global scale. Free trade, NAFTA, tax
reform and privatization, the creation of the Nunavut Territory,
commitment to human rights, the UN World Summit for Children,
accountability in government, redress for Japanese Canadians, the
Canadian Space Agency, an acid rain agreement with the U.S. and
the green plan were all examples of his remarkable legacy.
Under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney the deficit was cut in half
as a percentage of GDP. Government operational spending was cut
by 70%. Inflation reached a 30 year low and the bank rate stood
at its lowest level in two decades. It was under Brian Mulroney
that Canada first achieved its status as the best country in
which to live.
As Brian Mulroney is made a Companion of the Order of Canada we
salute his courage in pursuing a renewed Canada, his commitment
to preparing our nation for the millennium, his sense of duty and
love for his country. To Brian, Mila and the family we say
thanks for their profound contribution—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest.
* * *
HUNGARY
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 42 years ago tomorrow, on October 23, 1956, the flame of
freedom briefly burned to light the darkness of Stalinist
Hungarian communism. Thousands died in a revolution for
democracy and human rights and against dictatorship. If only
these heroic freedom fighters were alive today to see the fruits
which the tree of liberty has borne in Hungary nourished as they
were by their blood.
Since 1990 successive Hungarian governments have worked to
establish a solid democracy that is respectful of minority and
human rights. Hungary is now our partner in NATO. Only the
passage of time has been able to reveal to us the success that
sprang from a revolution so brutally suppressed.
Freedom loving individuals the world over salute those who gave
their lives to advance the cause of liberty 42 years ago.
* * *
[Translation]
SENIORS
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on October 13, the Canadian government had some good news for
seniors.
Starting in 1999, seniors will no longer have to fill out
separate forms in addition to their income tax returns for their
guaranteed income supplement or spouse's allowance.
Consequently, starting next year, both benefits will be
automatically renewed when seniors send their income tax returns
by April 30.
Previously, they had to submit a new application every year,
before March 31, to continue to receive their guaranteed income
supplement or spouse's allowance.
By cutting red tape, our government is making seniors' lives
easier.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, after 400 years of self-sufficiency the town of Canso,
Nova Scotia, will have to proclaim civic bankruptcy early in the
new year. This is a direct result of the policy of the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans to privatize the fishery. It
is a classic example of how the policies of the government can
devastate the economy of a small coastal community.
1410
In the town of Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, a processing plant is
moving to Newfoundland because DFO will not allow the company to
access the northern shrimp allocation. At the same time the
Liberal government gives away shrimp to foreign nations, shrimp
that could be used to save over 100 jobs in Mulgrave. This is an
absolute disgrace.
The government is forcing Canadians on to welfare when all they
have ever done and all they want to do is to work and become
active members of society. The government and the people who run
DFO should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.
* * *
[Translation]
GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to a
study by the Center for Social Justice, the gap between rich and
poor keeps getting wider, while the middle class is being
squeezed, partly as a result of the current government's social
policies.
This gap did not happen by chance. It is due in part to the
government's drastic cuts in health, education and income
security. Since coming to power, the Liberals have reduced the
per capita social transfer from $678 to $386 a year.
This gap is also the direct result of the current government's
relentless attacks on the unemployed, who have seen their
benefits cut by $20 billion.
No matter how adamant the Prime Minister is that children are
his number one priority, that his greatest responsibility is
towards young people, the figures in the study are calling him
to order and requiring him to act so that women, young people
and low income families can live with dignity.
* * *
[English]
VIOLENCE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
violence affects us all emotionally, socially and economically,
but a simple “can I help you” can make a huge difference. This
is the message being presented this week during the YWCA's Week
Without Violence.
Forty YWCAs will encourage Canadians to consider the violence
they face in their own lives. Their activities include
information displays, vigils, poster competitions, guest
speakers, music concerts and family fun days. The week will
address different types of violence by devoting each day to a
different theme.
Week Without Violence has a superb website. It can be reached
at www.ywcacanada.ca.
I congratulate the YWCAs in Peterborough and elsewhere on this
endeavour and extend their message to all members of the House:
get involved and do not be afraid to offer assistance to someone
in need.
* * *
CHIEF JUSTICE BRIAN DICKSON
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to pay tribute to Chief Justice Brian Dickson who passed
away on Saturday.
As a young man, Dickson served bravely in the Royal Canadian
Artillery in Europe during World War II where he was seriously
wounded. When he was later named to the Supreme Court of Canada
he said:
In understanding the responsibilities to which I have been
called, I dedicate myself to maintain the great tradition of this
court, to search for truth and to use such judicial power as is
mine to resolve fairly the basic questions about justice and
liberty, the rights of the individual and the authority of the
state.
He lived up to and surpassed these ideals. I had the privilege
of meeting Chief Justice Dickson this spring at defence committee
meetings where he vigorously defended the report on the military
that bears his name.
As Canada says goodbye to one of her most distinguished sons,
the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada extends its
condolences to his wife Barbara and their four children. We are
grateful for the life Chief Justice Dickson led—
The Speaker: The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.
* * *
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
October is Women's History Month. As a member of parliament who
had the pleasure of teaching Canadian history for many years, I
would like to recall the outstanding efforts of Canadian women
during the two world wars and in particular during World War II.
Although women did not serve at the front as combat troops in
our armed forces, they did play vital roles in support services,
perhaps most notably in the field of intelligence. Of course
many Canadian women made enormous sacrifices and contributions as
part of medical teams often quite close to the fighting. Indeed
some women paid the ultimate sacrifice as they gave their lives
to help us win World War II.
On the home front women made an invaluable contribution as they
worked tirelessly in our factories and on our farms to produce
the food, weapons and ammunition necessary for the allies to
defeat tyranny in Europe and in the Pacific. Canadian women both
overseas and at home made great sacrifices and gave invaluable
service during World War II so that we could enjoy the peace and
freedom we all cherish.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister's former director of operations, Jean Carle,
is heard over and over again on the RCMP APEC audio tapes. But
guess who is screening the tapes? The lawyer protecting the
Prime Minister at the APEC hearings.
Why is Ivan Whitehall, the Prime Minister's APEC lawyer, being
allowed to block access to those tapes?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to the matter of these tapes, in today's
Ottawa Citizen the member for Kootenay—Columbia is
reported to have conceded to reporters that he has no idea what
Carle might have been directing the RCMP to do or, indeed whether
he may simply have been giving innocuous instructions about
arrival and departure times and motorcade routes for the leaders.
Why does the hon. member not admit that when he made his
allegations yesterday he did not really know what he was talking
about?
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the issue is the tapes. Let me make that very clear for the
Deputy Prime Minister.
The solicitor for the Prime Minister is blocking access to the
RCMP tapes. This is completely unconscionable and goes against
anything reasonable.
I ask again why is the solicitor for the Prime Minister
blocking access to the RCMP tapes?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will have to check the accuracy of the hon. member's
assertion. It may well be that he does not know anything more
about what he is saying today than he did yesterday.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the counsel for the commission has acknowledged that the tapes
exist. Yet despite repeated requests by the students for those
tapes, they have not had one audio tape produced to them. This
is evidence that the Prime Minister's solicitor is burying the
tapes. Why?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, according to today's Ottawa Citizen, RCMP
spokesman Sergeant Russ Grabb said in an interview that the
police force has turned over all the tapes deemed relevant by the
public complaints commission so far. The other allegedly missing
tapes are still available and will be turned over when and if
they are requested by the commission.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think the problem here is that only the
tapes that have been deemed relevant by the solicitor for the
Prime Minister have been turned over.
The students were forced to turn over every shred of evidence
that they had, including Craig Jones' e-mail to his girlfriend.
I mean, come on. Yet the Prime Minister's lawyer refuses to
release important audio tapes that will show that the Prime
Minister's office directed the police crackdown at APEC.
How can the commission's inquiry be deemed to be fair if the—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
repeat, I think we ought to check the accuracy of the allegations
on which the hon. member bases her question.
In the past they have often been quite wrong in the allegations
behind their questions. We had better find out whether they know
any more today than they did on these matters in past days.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we know the tapes exist. The real issue
here is why is the government vetting any of the material being
dealt with by an independent commission.
Can the Prime Minister give Canadians the assurance that all
evidence will be turned over to this commission without being
vetted, being uncensored? Will the true information go before
the independent commission?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as far as I am aware, the government is co-operating
with this independent commission. The hon. member's allegations
and innuendoes are unwarranted and unsubstantiated.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
we just learned is more than troubling. This commission was
supposed to get to the bottom of the peppergate scandal. Yet we
just learned today that audio tapes incriminating the Prime
Minister are allegedly being kept in an RCMP safe.
1420
Can the solicitor general tell us whether or not audio tapes are
being kept in an RCMP vault?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the important person in this case is the counsel for the
commission who has not indicated at any time that there was any
problem. He says the government is co-operating completely. He
is the person who should be speaking to this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general is responsible for the RCMP. I asked him a
very clear question. I would like him to answer my question as
freely as if he was on a plane.
Are audio tapes being kept in an RCMP vault, yes or no? Can the
minister give me an answer?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, this is the subject of an independent
inquiry. The person to whom that question should be addressed is
the counsel for the commission who is holding that inquiry.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
peppergate scandal smells a lot like déjà vu.
We just learned that audio tapes that would be incriminating for
the Prime Minister's Office seem to have disappeared. This
reminds me a lot of the Somalia inquiry, where lost documents
paralyzed the armed forces for a whole day.
In the peppergate scandal, is the government about to announce
that a special day will be set aside to find the allegedly lost
tapes?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, the government is co-operating completely.
The counsel for the commission confirms that.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government is clearly on the defensive. My question is very
simple: What does the government have to hide?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's position on this is very clear. This
is an important investigation. The public complaints commission
is the agency to look into this and to get to the truth. That is
exactly what it should be allowed to do.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Before a Senate committee this morning health protection
scientists described under oath how in the course of their work
they have been muzzled and gagged, directed to alter documents
and have had their files rifled and removed.
With these police state tactics how can scientists do their jobs
of protecting the health of Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I understand it, the hearings this morning had to do with the
process by which the application for approval of something called
rBST was carried forward.
So not to lose sight of the facts, I want to stress that rBST
has not been approved in Canada. It has not been approved by
Health Canada. Even though it has been approved in the States we
have said no. We have not given approval. We will not give
approval until the safety of that substance is determined to our
satisfaction. This has been under review for nine years.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
health minister can pretend that everything is fine in health
protection. Is he saying it is fine to muzzle scientists? Is it
fine with the minister to alter documents? Is it fine to
secretly remove files?
If the health minister has nothing to hide why not agree to a
full and open inquiry to investigate these serious allegations?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
were the member not speaking in the political theatre she would
concede that many of these allegations have already been
investigated. Some of them are now before the Public Service
Staff Relations Board which has had a full hearing and has had
this testimony before it. Some of the allegations she mentions go
back to 1990. They were the subject of television programs in
1994.
These have been looked at over the years. Now they are before
the Public Service Staff Relations Board. Let us let that board
consider the evidence and come to its own conclusions.
As far as Health Canada is concerned we will continue to act in
the public interest.
* * *
1425
APEC INQUIRY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the public
complaints commission needs access to all audio tapes of RCMP
officers and Jean Carle's discussions regarding security during
the APEC summit. This would be irrefutable evidence of PMO
interference in the RCMP.
Did the Prime Minister ask Jean Carle to direct security
arrangements so that peaceful Canadian protesters would not upset
brutal Asian dictators?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Jean Carle is coming to the commission to testify. Why
don't we let him testify. I am sure he will confirm that the
Prime Minister acted properly in this matter.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is extremely disturbing that relevant audio tapes
are presently held by a forum other than the public complaints
commission. It suggests a cover-up either from senior levels of
the RCMP, the solicitor general or the Prime Minister.
I ask the solicitor general why were all these recordings not
turned over to the public complaints commission as requested. Or
is the solicitor general again covering for the Prime Minister?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said many times, the counsel to the commission has
expressed no problem with the availability of information. The
government has been very forthright. In fact, there has been a
remarkable collection of information made available.
The counsel to the commission and the commission are doing their
job and the hon. member should allow them to continue.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister says that BST modified milk has been studied a long time
and not approved and it is fine. The interesting thing is that
scientists say that $2 million was offered to the department and
when this was reported to the department absolutely nothing was
done.
I do not care if a television show did expose this. Why is the
health department not doing anything if millions of dollars were
offered?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday we found the member had not read his clippings from the
summer. Now we can see the member has not watched television
since 1994.
All these allegations in relation to the alleged break in and so
on were dealt with when they were reported to officials in 1990
when they allegedly occurred. They were looked into. There were
inquiries. The matter became public and aired on a television
program.
Let me come back to the real point. The real point is that
Health Canada is watching for the safety of Canadians. We have
not approved rBST. We will not approve it—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this story
gets worse. When the five scientists who were on the top of this
file made these complaints what happened to them? Due to the
company they were removed from the file.
My question is straightforward. Just who is looking after the
safety of our milk in Canada, our scientists whom we trust or
some faceless big drug company? Who is looking after us?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member has his facts wrong. He should be embarrassed. The
member should double check his facts.
In the meantime, Health Canada has not approved rBST. Health
Canada will not approve rBST until we are satisfied it is safe
notwithstanding the fact it has been approved in the United
States and appropriate for sale in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUS
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government refuses to admit that it has a sizable budget surplus
with which it could give back to the provinces the money it took
from the health sector. As Alain Dubuc wrote in La Presse: “This
fiction about a zero surplus has become an insult to the
intelligence and is totally unacceptable in a democracy”.
Will the Prime Minister admit that he has some latitude, since
he has already allocated $20 billion to the debt over a period
of 15 months, and since the surplus for the first five months of
the current fiscal year has already reached $8 billion?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we obviously have a surplus
for the period to date, but there is a great deal of uncertainty
about the future. One third of the world is currently in a
recession. We will continue to act in a prudent and responsible
way. It is our duty and our plan of action.
1430
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government does have some latitude; what is totally missing is
compassion for the people. That is the reality.
I am asking whoever speaks on behalf of the government, someone
who is responsible—
Some hon. members: There is no one.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: —whether the government will pledge to give a
favourable reply to the provincial finance ministers and give
them back the $6.3 billion it owes them for health and social
programs?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we obviously had to cut
transfers in certain areas, on behalf of all Canadians and
because of the deficit. But what the Bloc is suggesting is truly
irresponsible.
It does not take into account the $1 billion in equalization
payments, the $2.1 billion increase in tax points and the $650
million transferred for the infrastructure program. Quebec did
not suffer much in net terms.
It is obvious that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a new study out which shows that Canadians are getting
poorer, yet this government continues to overtax Canadians with
one of the most regressive taxes imaginable. The fact is that EI
taxes hurt working class Canadians the most.
Why should regular working class Canadians pay for this
government's multibillion EI rip-off?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is very
much a question of choice. It is incumbent upon all of us to
look at the alternatives.
Are we going to cut taxes that relate only to eight million
taxpayers or are we going to have a tax cut right across the
board in the income tax spectrum which would benefit fourteen
million taxpayers? This is one of the choices we have to make.
We have cut employment insurance taxes. It was going to $3.30
and we froze it at $3.07. We then cut it to $3. We then cut it
to $2.95—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a measure of this government's arrogance that it is trying to
make choices with other people's money. That money does not
belong to the government, it belongs to workers and employers.
A $350 EI tax cut may not mean much to a cabinet minister, but
it means a lot to a fisherman, a waitress or people who are just
trying to make it out there. It means a lot to them. This is a
regressive tax that hurts people who are working the most.
When is the government simply going to obey the law and give
that money back to them? Obey the law. When is it going to do
that?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last
budget we cut $1.4 billion from payroll taxes.
We have some choices to make in terms of a global competitive
economy. When we have among the lowest payroll taxes in the G-7
and yet we have the highest personal income taxes, which is going
to help Canada the most on a competitive basis? These are some
of the choices we have to make.
We are committed to continuing to cut these payroll taxes. That
is what we have done in the past—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Drummond.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the provinces
will agree to sign a three-year plan if the federal government
cancels the $6 billion cut in transfer payments for health and
social programs.
Will the Minister of Health undertake to give back the money
taken away from the provinces for health?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
clarified and specified that health is a key issue, one of our
top priorities.
We already increased transfers by $1.5 billion last year—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Allan Rock: —and the Prime Minister also stated that health
would be at the heart of our next major reinvestment.
1435
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Yet, Mr. Speaker, last
Sunday, the Minister of Health said he was prepared to give back
to the provinces the money for the health sector.
Now that the government is showing substantial budgetary
surpluses, will the minister demand that the provinces be fully
reimbursed for the cuts in health transfers, or will he knuckle
under to the Minister of Finance as his colleague, the Minister
of Human Resources Development, does so well?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear that the priority for us is health. We have already acted
on this priority and it is our intention to deliver on this
commitment.
As the Prime Minister said, our next major reinvestment would be
in health and, to this end, I plan to work together with my
provincial partners.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the House should know that the heritage minister wants her own
culture cops. These culture cops would have the right of
search and seizure.
Can the minister tell this House why she thinks it is necessary
to have her own culture cops?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member asked this question. One of
the challenges that I made to the Reform Party today was to stand
and tell Canadians why it is opposing legislation which provides
support to Canadian Legion magazines across the country.
I would like Reform members to stand in their places and answer
that question. On the eve of Remembrance Day, it is absolutely
disgraceful that the Reform Party does not support Canadian
Legion magazines.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for three weeks we have been talking about free speech and
democracy. Here we have a minister who wants to start another
police force called culture cops.
Does the heritage minister really think this kind of censorship
is reasonable in a democratic society?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, not only do I oppose censorship vigorously, I want
the Canadian people to be able to read every magazine that they
can get their hands on, including Canadian magazines like the
Alberta Report, the Legion magazine and
Maclean's magazine.
The only party in this House that is supporting censorship is
the party that would stifle the voices of Canadian magazines
instead of supporting the right of Canadians to tell their
stories.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the latest figures regarding coverage for the
unemployed once again provide an indictment of the minister's EI
scheme. Only 43% of unemployed workers received benefits in
August. Thus 57% of unemployed workers were shamefully made to
contribute to the budget surplus.
What is the Minister for Human Resources Development waiting for
to take immediate steps to restore the credibility of the
system? Is he perhaps waiting for the green light from the
finance minister?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the report is full of statistics
on the unemployed. The PQ branch office in Ottawa is trying to
confuse everybody and to make workers feel insecure.
The facts are very clear: 78% of Canadians who worked full time
for at least three months and left their job with cause or were
laid off are covered by the employment insurance system. There
is no point in scaring Canadians.
* * *
ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of International Trade. Yesterday at the World
Trade Organization, the European Union turned down Canada's
request to set up a panel to review France's ban on asbestos.
Since this industry is of paramount importance, could the
minister clarify the situation?
1440
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his very important question.
At its meeting yesterday, the WTO reviewed our request. We knew
the European Union would not agree. As a result, the decision
has been postponed by one month.
On November 25 a panel will be automatically set up to examine
our complaint. The goal of the Government of Canada, in
partnership with the Government of Quebec, the industry and
unions—
The Speaker: The member for Skeena.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the
health minister signed a $12 million agreement with the Gitksan
Indian Band in northern B.C. for health care administration.
Now we find that several hundred thousand dollars of this money
is invested in the stock market.
When I asked the minister in writing how these funds could be in
the stock market, he referred to these funds as surplus funds.
Does the minister really think that the Gitksan band has more
money than it needs for health care and that these are in fact
surplus funds?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will look into the matter raised by the member and respond when
I am fully informed.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wrote to
the minister on this matter about five months ago and he has
responded, so I think he is informed.
Band members have told me they cannot get travel money when they
need to go to Vancouver or Terrace for a CAT scan or to see a
specialist. As a matter of fact, I have had band members tell me
that when they are in Vancouver they sleep in a pick-up truck
because there is no money for them to have a motel room while
they are waiting to get a hospital bed.
How can the health minister refer to these funds, in writing, as
surplus funds when so many of the band members are so obviously
short changed on their health care?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will respond to the member when I am fully informed. I will
very carefully examine the facts that he has referred to today to
determine whether they are accurate.
* * *
HEALTH PROTECTION BRANCH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, testimony given today under oath by Health Canada
scientists paints a horrifying picture of what is happening right
now in the health protection branch.
They are talking about gag orders and intimidation under this
minister and under this government.
Does the minister deny that these serious events occurred and,
if not, how does he respond to these very serious allegations?
Will he lift the gag order? Will he let the scientists do their
work?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again, just to introduce an air of reality to these
proceedings, the hearings today concerned the question of rBST
which is an additive in milk that is approved in the United
States and has been for years.
Health Canada has not approved rBST and it will not approve rBST
unless and until we are satisfied that it is safe and appropriate
for use in Canada.
On the subject of the alleged gag order, the member should know
that after the Senate committee subpoenaed the scientists from
Health Canada they first did not want to go. I had officials
write to them to encourage them to go and remind them of their
obligation to testify.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the solicitor general and it concerns
the APEC inquiry.
Will the solicitor general tell the House precisely what role
the lawyer for the federal government, Ivan Whitehall, played in
reviewing RCMP tape recordings of Jean Carle, the Prime
Minister's top henchman, at APEC?
Has Whitehall been given any privileged access to review the
evidence and, if so, does the minister not recognize that this
makes a mockery of the commission's independence and in effect
will destroy the credibility of the commission itself?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rely on the public complaints commission and its
counsel for their judgment as to whether they are getting access
to all the information they need.
To this point there has been absolutely no complaint.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the dreaded mad cow disease that ravaged Britain has
jumped the species barrier.
The human version of the disease is identified as CJD. Because
of the possibility of infectious agents being in their blood
supply the British government has outlawed the use of all U.K.
plasma.
1445
In March 1998 Britain closed its own plasma industry and stopped
accepting blood from its citizens, all because of the connection
between British beef and the mad cow disease which could be
harboured in the blood supply system.
What assurances will the minister give us that he is doing
everything to protect—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there was a report tabled just last week from an advisory group
on this whole question. That report has been received by Health
Canada officials and technical people and is being examined very
carefully.
I should tell the member in response to his question more
broadly that we have a world class surveillance system at Health
Canada in relation to contaminants, including CJD. CJD is the
subject of an extensive research project that has been started at
Health Canada so that we can better understand this new class of
prion contaminants in blood. I assure the House we take the risk
very seriously.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I think this is the same minister who fell asleep at the
switch in regard to Canada's tainted blood supply system. Have we
not learned something by Krever? When other nations are taking
action now to protect their citizens, we want assurances that the
same tragedy we are suffering now will not occur again because of
inaction by the minister.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member has his chronology a bit wrong. The Krever commission
reported when we were in office, inquiring into events that
occurred when his party was in office.
* * *
NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last June the Secretary of State for Parks along with the
Minister of Canadian Heritage announced that they would protect
our national parks from excessive commercial development.
What concrete actions has the secretary of state taken to
preserve the natural assets of our parks for future generations,
like my son Zachary who is currently causing grief in the
gallery?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have undertaken a number of steps including reducing
the commercial development that will be allowed in Banff,
reducing the size of the community, and placing a moratorium on
outside commercial development in respect of accommodation. Just
yesterday I had the opportunity to announce the formation of a
panel which will have as its job to set specific principles that
any future development may undergo. All of these things have one
very special principle in mind, that we protect our parks not
only for today's generation but for Zachary's generation as well.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal commercial is over.
The Sydney tar ponds are saturated with cancer causing toxins.
Studies have shown that Sydney residents have experienced a 130%
increase in the rate of stomach cancer.
I witnessed firsthand this appalling mess. It makes me wonder
what would happen if that oozing mass of filth were on the front
lawn of Parliament Hill or on a certain lawn in Shawinigan. How
long would it take this Liberal government to clean it up then?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government is very concerned
about the Sydney tar ponds and contamination in the area.
We have worked very closely with a citizens group in Sydney,
Nova Scotia, which also has representation from all three levels
of government. We have contributed funds to this process which
is working to resolve this very serious issue. We have met with
the process, the so-called JAG. We have signed an MOU with them.
We have met with the affected citizens in the area and we are
working with the province to resolve this very serious issue.
* * *
[Translation]
PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKERS ADJUSTMENT
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
order to replace POWA, the government promised in 1996 to
develop “various income support measures for those who could no
longer find work in the highly competitive labour market”.
Why is the Minister of Human Resources Development not honouring
his predecessor's commitment and developing new income support
measures to help older workers in this particularly difficult
situation?
1450
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed the situation of a number
of older workers in Canada is causing us concern. Theirs is a
difficult situation.
We had to end the POWA program, which was unfair. It was unfair
to everyone in this category.
So, obviously, we provided more
funding for active measures in order to help people return to
the labour market. We set up a number of programs intended for
the population as a whole, including those looking for work.
However, we are very concerned by their situation.
* * *
[English]
VOLVO CANADA LTD.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Volvo plant in my riding is now occupied by employees afraid for
their future. Will this government commit right now to actively
do everything in its power to ensure these workers are treated
fairly and to try to find a solution to keep these people
gainfully employed?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are very concerned with the future of the workers at
the Volvo plant. It is a situation that has resulted from
restructuring by the corporation. It is our view that in the
short term at least, resolution of a number of differences could
best be achieved if the workers and the company could work very
quickly to resolve the differences that are currently separating
them in the plant itself.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance's provincial counterparts are demanding that
he explain why his government is breaking the Employment
Insurance Act by imposing excessive insurance contributions on
Canadians. The government seems to be circumventing the law in
order to keep employment insurance contributions at a needlessly
high level.
The Employment Insurance Act stipulates that premiums must be
reduced. Does the government intend to pass legislation in
order to prevent the premium reduction that is called for in the
legislation?
[English]
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
difficult choices all of us have to make is whether we are going
to have a balanced approach in a time when our economic future is
not entirely certain. Thank goodness that to date we have taken
the steps to get us from a $42 billion deficit down to a place
where last year we posted the first surplus. This was a historic
achievement.
In terms of where we go in the future, yes we have to be
cautiously prudent. We must not go into deficit again. This is
primordial.
* * *
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Some suggest
the provinces will not sign on to the minister's plan for a
revenue agency. Three Nova Scotia ministers along with this
minister have signed a service contract to be administered by the
agency. How would this agreement and the agency benefit the
people of Nova Scotia?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week we signed a service agreement
contract with the Government of Nova Scotia. We also signed a
contract to look at Revenue Canada under the new proposed agency
to collect for the Workers' Compensation Board. Let me quote
Nova Scotia finance minister Don Downe, “This contract builds on
the strong co-operative relationship between Nova Scotia and
Revenue Canada and provides means for our relationship to evolve
under the new agency”. Let me also quote Peter O'Brien,
spokesman for the Canadian Federation of Independent—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
* * *
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Greenpeace is attacking the B.C. lumber industry by spreading the
lie that all B.C. wood products come from old growth forests. You
can bet your bottom dollar that next it will be the lumber
industries in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec.
Liberal members in B.C. are strangely silent in the face of an
industry in serious economic trouble. When will this Liberal
government speak up for British Columbians? When will the Prime
Minister stand up for B.C., deny these lies and set the record
straight in the courts of the world?
1455
The Speaker: I do not know if I heard the right word,
lies. Did the hon. member use the word lies? I prefer that we
not use that word if we possibly can.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe that Hansard will show that this issue
was first raised in the House of Commons by Liberal members on
the government side.
It is true there are number of organizations that over the
course of the past period of time have misconstrued and
misinterpreted Canadian forestry practices. This issue has been
discussed at length among federal and provincial forestry
ministers, including the minister in B.C. We are working on a
comprehensive strategy to ensure that the world knows the true
story.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-44
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
while it is increasingly obvious that the Liberal government is
trying to crush any and all opposition in Canada, the very idea
of making CBC director positions liable to dismissal is
disquieting, to say the least.
Given the protests against Bill C-44, the result of which will be
to convert the public broadcaster into a state broadcaster, by
two past presidents of the CBC, as well as the current one, and
more than 20 Canadian reporters, when will the Prime Minister
withdraw his Bill C-44?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
quasi-judiciary agencies, which must of course retain their
independence, will need to have presidents or board members who
conduct themselves properly, while all other agencies, whether
cultural or otherwise, should have administrators who hold
office during pleasure, so that they may be removed when their
behaviour warrants it.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as you know,
fishing is very often a family business. During the last eight
years, women have worked for their husbands as dockhands and
have always qualified for EI benefits. In the last few weeks,
the Department of Human Resources Development has turned down EI
applications from 40 women because of the arm's length
provisions.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development against women
working in the fishing industry or would he agree that his
department discriminated against these women?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely convinced that
my department did not discriminate against these women. We have
very specific arm's length provisions, because no EI system
could work without such rules.
I can assure the hon. member that I will look into the case he
has mentioned, but I am sure there has been no discrimination.
We do have to abide by the arm's length provisions, which are
quite clear. Otherwise, no employment insurance scheme would
work.
* * *
POVERTY
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
A report has been released that says Canadian families are
poorer today than when the Liberals formed the government in
1993. Children are poorer and the gap between the rich and poor
is growing wider yearly.
This government has refused to lift the burden of the tax system
from two million low income Canadians by increasing the personal
exemption to $10,000. When will the government stop penalizing
low income Canadians? When can we expect to see a long term
plan for this very serious problem?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are obviously deeply
concerned about the situation of a large number of Canadians,
and about the level of poverty in this country. That is why we
have made it a focus of our government's programs.
That is why, in partnership with the provinces, we have
introduced the national child benefit, which will increase the
incomes of low income families in this country by $1.7 billion
over the next three years. We have introduced a great many
other measures as well, which I hope to have the opportunity to
speak about in the House soon.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has given
permission to the Mekah people to hunt grey whales with a .50
calibre illegal gun in our backyard. This hunt can smash the 16
year ban on whaling that has saved many species from becoming
extinct.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans launch a formal
complaint with Washington to stop this hunt and rescind the
licences that he has given to hunt these whales?
1500
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as is usual with members of the Reform
Party, they again have their facts wrong. There is a hunt taking
place in the United States by the Makah tribe which has a permit
for five animals.
If an animal wounded in that hunt in the United States moves
into Canadian waters, I have said that I will permit them to
follow that whale for humane purposes so that it can be
dispatched in a humane way and will not continue to die an
agonizing death.
In addition, I have made it clear—
The Speaker: That will bring to a close our question
period for today.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is nothing usual about this; it is very unique. Given the
circumstances of the economy, I would like to ask the government
House leader what exactly they are doing with legislation for the
remainder of this week and the following week to address the
economy.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member
opposite asked this very important question. As usual, the
government will continue with its program to respond to Canada's
economic and other needs.
This afternoon, for instance, we will resume debate on Bill
C-55, the periodicals legislation. On Friday, we will call Bill
C-41 respecting the Royal Canadian Mint. If that debate ends
tomorrow I do not foresee calling any other business.
On Monday we will have an allotted day to permit the opposition
to ask very important questions, hopefully. Next Tuesday we hope
to complete Bill C-43 respecting the Revenue Canada agency at
second reading.
On Wednesday next we will deal with the Nunavut judges bill,
followed by Bill C-49 respecting the equally important issue of
native land claims.
1505
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. This morning in the justice committee we completed a
report and we were unable to table it.
I would seek unanimous consent to allow me to table this report
which resolves the outstanding issue of when our committee will
study impaired driving.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights on the drafting of a bill to amend those
sections of the Criminal Code that deal with impaired driving.
I thank the House for its consent. While I am on my feet, I
will push my luck a little further and ask if I could also have
unanimous consent to move concurrence in the report.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
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 second time and referred to a
committee.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of parliament is to stand up for
Canada, and to stand up for Canada means to play by the rules.
That is why Canada is implementing every element of the World
Trade Organization decision on magazines. The tariff code
measure will be eliminated. The excise tax measure will be
eliminated. Postal rules will be altered.
To stand up for Canada means to respect the bodies that make our
shared globe function, but it also means to stand up for Canadian
culture.
[Translation]
Under the bill introduced in the House of Commons, only Canadian
publishers will have the right to sell advertisement directed at
the Canadian market.
Advertisement revenues allow us to sustain Canadian writings, to
promote Canadian viewpoints and to see our own stories. They
also allow to sustain writing and production and to publish many
periodicals that tell proudly and openly our own stories.
Advertisement revenues represent 60 % of Canadian periodical
revenues.
Canada cannot allow foreign publishers to chip away at our
advertisement market and thus harm an essential part of our
culture and identity.
[English]
Parliament is not being asked to support censorship. Parliament
is being asked to prohibit the sale and distribution of
advertising services directed specifically at the Canadian market
by non-Canadian publishers. Parliament is being asked to put in
place fines for foreign publishers that attempt to violate these
laws.
What is at stake here is the capacity of a country to secure and
promote its own culture. What is at stake is Canadian content,
stories by Canadians for Canadians and the world.
What is at stake is the collective and individual capacity of
thousands of our writers, editors, photographers, publishers and
entrepreneurs. What is at stake is cultural diversity in the
world.
1510
Let me address some of the criticisms directed at the
legislation. There are those, particularly in the Reform Party,
who say that if a Canadian magazine cannot compete then it should
not exist. What kind of a level playing field is it if there are
no editorial costs for foreign publications that can come into
Canada and skim the gravy off advertising revenues? This is not
about competing for readers. Canadian magazines are happy to
compete for readers. It is about Canadian advertising revenues
nourishing an industry and giving it a capacity to exist.
I must underscore the fact that Canadian magazine policy
supports magazines like Legion Magazine which tells the
stories of Canadian war heroes to Canadians. It is absolutely
shameful a party that claims to support the grassroots across the
country is opposing legislation which would provide continued
existence to Legion Magazine, a magazine that by the way
has indicated it needs this support to survive.
This is about foreign magazines whose costs are already covered
with foreign content coming in and squeezing the lifeblood out of
Canadian stories. It is about ensuring the future of Canadian
farm magazines. The Canadian Corn Producers Association—
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: They do not need your help, Sheila.
Nor do they want it.
Hon. Sheila Copps: I hear the member. Approximately $45
million in postal subsidies are going out to organizations as
diverse as the Ontario Corn Producers Association. Those
organizations have indicated very clearly to the government that
they support the policy and they support the government because
they want their voices heard in the Canadian agricultural
industry.
This is about the future of Canadian magazines for veterans,
Canadian magazines for fishermen, Canadian news magazines,
business magazines like BC Business Magazine which has
supported the policy put forward by the government, and Canadian
scholarly and consumer magazines. This is about making sure that
we have Canadian kids magazines to tell stories for our kids.
There is also criticism from those who say the legislation may
upset the United States. Those opposite seem to forget the
reason they were elected to the Parliament of Canada was to fight
for the interest and the survival of their country. Those people
who say the legislation will upset the United States must
understand the fact that no country on earth has ever imported
and read as many magazines per capita as Canada now imports from
the United States. The legislation will keep that market open.
No country in the history of the globe has ever exported as many
magazines per capita to any other country in the world as has the
United States to the Canadian market. We are more open to
American magazines than any other country in the world.
Can we imagine the reaction of Americans if they walked into
their neighbourhood smoke shop and saw that 80% of the magazines
being sold on the rack were Canadian magazines? That is what we
would like our American neighbours to think about.
The United States is our closest ally and friend. We welcome
American cultural influences with open arms, but we have a
responsibility and a legacy to our children to stand up for
Canada. With serious respect, we will not subject as has been
suggested in some quarters Canada's laws to scrutiny and approval
by the United States before we pass them.
Can we imagine the United States Congress putting a bill before
parliament before it passed its own legislation? The simple fact
is that unless Canadians stand up for culture, who will? Unless
Canada stands up for Canadian interests, who will? Of course
there are risks in acting but there is a far greater risk in
doing nothing.
1515
There is a far greater risk in the cultural cowardice being
shown by the members of the Reform Party. There is a far greater
risk in failing to stand up for Canada's legitimate interests.
[Translation]
Some critics think that governments should not get involved in
policies to help periodicals. But the answer to that is simple:
if Canada does not support Canadian culture, if Quebeckers and
the Quebec government do not support Quebec culture, who will?
[English]
Unless we stand up for our interests who will? Forty years ago
there were only a handful of Canadian magazines. The government
of Prime Minister Lester Pearson saw a need to act in the
national and public interest to create a framework, not to write
the magazines, not to censor the magazines and not to block other
magazines, but to create a basis for 1,500 Canadian magazines
that we all enjoy.
This Christmas I want my daughter to be able to read about
Canadian tradition. I want her to read about my sister-in-law's
tourtiere. I also want her to read about how I prepare my garden
in Canada for our Canadian winters. I do not want her to have to
read a magazine that celebrates American holidays, American
culture and American values because it is the only choice she
has. That is what is at stake.
From L'Actualité to Western Living, from
Vancouver magazine to Canadian Geographic, from
Maclean's to Canadian Gardening, 1,500 magazines in
our country now tell us the story of who we are. They talk about
our way of life. They allow us to see the regions of the country
we do not have a chance to visit personally. They allow us to
read the stories of all the ages, from kindergarten to
great-grandparent.
Maybe we could do nothing to ensure the chance for these
magazines to survive but we would be the losers. The losers
especially would be our children.
The other suggestion by those cultural cowards is that we should
test the bill in the courts before we bring it into parliament. I
suggest that such an approach compromises the democratic,
judicial and parliamentary principles that say that the highest
place for laws to be made and the responsibility for those laws
reposes in the Parliament of Canada. Those naysayers would tie
the hands of parliament and make us hostage to every group that
did not like a proposed law.
We will not compromise Canada's basic legislative rights as a
nation by seeking external approval from outside governments
before legislating in Canada's national interest.
I would like to add to the point made over and over again by the
Minister for International Trade. Advertising services are just
that, services. Services are subject to the general agreement on
services. The measure before parliament is absolutely and
completely consistent with Canada's international obligations
under that agreement.
I underscore another point that has been made over and over in
the past few months. This bill will not oppose any foreign
publisher's ability to export products into the Canadian market.
We will continue to have and nurture the most open magazine
market in the world. This will not affect existing commercial
operations.
The objectives of Canada on this matter are fair. The approach
taken in this bill is fair. The need for action is clear. The
need for speed is vital. There are no taxes proposed by this
bill. There are no subsidies in this bill. There is no
restriction on the circulation of foreign goods proposed by this
bill.
[Translation]
This bill shows that we are committed to regulating advertising
services to develop our own policies reflecting the nature of
our country and the identity of our people.
Canadian cultural achievements are not a coincidence.
Achievements in our culture and our country require the work,
the intelligence, the dedication and the creativity of many
individuals and of parliament.
To contribute to these achievements, Canadian citizens must
resolve to promote Canadian content and to support Canadian
culture.
1520
[English]
That is why the bill to establish the foreign publishers
advertising services act is before parliament. It is not about
parliament acting in the government's interest or in parliament's
interest. It is about parliament acting in the interests of
Canada.
Advertising revenues are the backbone of Canadian magazines and
the fuel for a crucial vehicle of social, economic, political and
cultural expression of our nation. What we seek as Canadians is
a chance to hear our own stories, to see our own creators, to
watch our own talent and to hear our own voices at home and
abroad.
The new bill before the House is in support of a cultural
heritage grounded in history and handed to our generation by
generations of parliamentarians who had the courage to make a
difference in the past.
This bill upholds longstanding Canadian cultural objectives and
it upholds and supports the right of Canada and the right of
Canadians to advance and promote Canadian culture and by doing so
to advance and promote our identity and our nationhood.
Members of parliament who truly believe that Canada is a nation
worth supporting and preserving have no option but to support
this legislation.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I
ask for unanimous consent of the House to have the minister
answer questions on her presentation.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
unfortunately the minister is still living in the seventies. This
is the nineties and we have to accept that the world and society
change.
Prior to my coming to the House this afternoon I attended a
meeting of the heritage committee and we had before us the
chairman of the National Film Board. What refreshing ideas I
heard this morning.
I asked her about culture because she was before the committee
talking about Canadian culture policy. I asked the chairman in
terms of promotion or protection which would she prefer. She
said there was a time when this country probably needed
protection and I agree. In the nineties with changing
technologies her own statement was protection is less and less
sustainable. We know what that means. That means we cannot
afford to continue to give grants and subsidies and put
censorship in place.
The chairman of the National Film Board stated there is no
problem with Canadian content because Canadians want to buy and
watch and hear things that are Canadian.
She told us about the National Film Board and its super success.
The National Film Board has promoted Canada around the world.
It has done a great job, even with reduced funding. The chairman
told the committee that one of the problems in this country is
that we do not have a master plan for cultural policy.
Everything is a little piece here, a little piece there. She has
a lot of good advice for all of us in this House.
The system is so convoluted that we need to streamline our
system in cultural policy. There is too much overlap.
There is too much overlap.
1525
Other advice she gives the committee is that we have to follow
the right paradigm. We cannot continue to do things we have done
in the past. That is excellent advice.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to intervene as critic
for Canadian heritage on behalf of the official opposition on the
bill at second reading. Most important, I am speaking on behalf
of Canadians. While the minister may speak on behalf of the
Government of Canada I will speak from the opposition benches for
Canadians and their parliament. It is my job to make certain the
interests of Canadians are served by the bill. Whose interests
would this law serve? That is a good question.
More fundamental, it is my job to make sure this bill is
necessary. If there is one thing Canadians do not need it is one
more unnecessary law. Does it address a real problem or is the
bill a solution in search of a problem? That is an interesting
question. It is my job to make sure the bill is not a bad law.
No law in a particular area of policy is better than a bad law
that leads to unintended consequences.
I call the attention of the government and the House to what I
hope are unintended consequences of the bill. We also have to
think about how a law with international implications reflects on
Canada. Does it reflect well? How will it be received on a
world stage? We are a global community. What does Bill C-55 say
about Canada? Is this a law crafted so that it prepares Canada
for the 21st century? Does this law try to perpetuate a tired
old policy better suited to the 19th century?
Most important, it is my job to see that if this bill cuts back
the freedoms Canadians enjoy and if it limits our freedoms
members of the House will want to make sure that is justified. If
this bill would roll back freedoms without any good reason then
the House should not leave sober second thought to the unelected
place. We know where that is.
The duly elected members of parliament should stand to oppose a
bad law to preserve the freedoms and protect the interests of
Canadians who elected them. That is true irrespective of where
we sit in this place.
Bill C-55, the foreign publishers advertising services act, is
Canada's response to the World Trade Organization, the WTO
dispute settlement panel and the WTO appellate body's ruling
issued in March and June 1997. The WTO ruled against Canada's
punitive tariffs and tax measures against split run editions of
foreign magazines and hidden postal subsidies for Canadian
magazines. The deadline for Canada's response is October 30,
1998.
In an attempt to overcome the ruling this bill construes
advertising not as a good but instead Bill C-55 creates a
statutory definition of advertising as a service. What is a
split run edition? “Magazines with editorial content broadly
similar to their foreign original but with advertising aimed at a
Canadian audience”.
Why does the Minister of Canadian Heritage target split run
editions? A press release from the day she tabled Bill C-55,
October 8, 1998 says: “Under the act only Canadian periodical
publishers will be able to sell advertising services aimed
primarily at the Canadian market to Canadian advertisers”.
In the same press release the minister says: “More than 80% of
magazines sold at Canadian news stands are foreign, most from the
United States”. Does the heritage minister's assertion stand
up? The short answer is no. The minister's own department
admits that at least 50% of magazines sold in Canada are Canadian
magazines.
1530
Let me repeat that the Department of Canadian Heritage admits
that at least 50% of the magazines sold in Canada are Canadian
magazines. The minister appears to be concocting a need by
choosing her statistics very selectively.
Further, the minister knows that 75% of all magazines read by
Canadians are read in the home. These are magazines they
subscribe to or receive by controlled circulation. What is
controlled circulation? They are the magazines we receive with
our newspapers or are otherwise distributed directly to our
homes, in most cases at no cost. These 94% of
magazines received by subscription or by controlled circulation
are Canadian owned. This leaves me to ask the following question
of the Minister of Canadian Heritage: What problem is the
minister trying to fix? Why is the minister looking for a
problem when none exists?
Bill C-55 is a solution in search of a problem. Whose interest
is the heritage minister trying to defend? Canadians? They
already read Canadian magazines with a Canadian viewpoint.
Magazines like Maclean's, Saturday Night and
Chatelaine are already well read. If we include
newspapers, we are well supplied with a Canadian outlook on
ourselves and on the world. Canadian readership for Canadian
publications already supports a healthy Canadian advertising
market. Again, whose interest is the heritage minister trying to
defend?
If the heritage minister really wants to do something for
Canadian magazines she would do well to heed the advice of the
defence minister. In a speech delivered January 17, 1997 he said
“Perhaps in a new digital world, policies of cultural promotion
make more sense than traditional policies of protection”.
Promotion, not protection. Promotion, yes, but this bill does
not promote, it protects an industry that is already healthy.
This bill is really unnecessary. That in itself suggests that
Bill C-55 is a bad law. There are other problems with Bill C-55
that make it a bad law.
Bill C-55 tries to redefine magazine advertising as a service,
but the redefinition of advertising as a service is contrived.
Magazine advertising is printed on paper with ink and appears in
thousands of magazines. The advertising is a tangible good. We
can see it, touch it, write on it, pick it up, tear it out or
crumple it up. Magazines sell advertising space, not an
advertising service. The minister is inventing a definition that
is not based on reality.
The minister has introduced Bill C-55 in response to rulings
from the World Trade Organization, a dispute settlement panel and
appellate body. These rulings were issued in March and June 1997
against Canada's punitive tariff and tax measures, against split
run editions of foreign magazines and hidden postal subsidies for
Canadian magazines.
The minister wants to protect us against the dangerous incursion
of publications like the New England Journal of Medicine.
Let us step back for a moment and look at the bigger picture of
Canada's international trade. Canada is heavily dependent on
two-way trade with the United States. In fact we know that trade
represents in excess of $1 billion a day. Canadians' standard of
living, our jobs, our ability to sell our goods and services is
heavily dependent on a good trading relationship with the United
States. Therefore, it is proper to ask how the United States has
reacted to Bill C-55.
1535
I will read from some remarks released in Geneva by the U.S.
trade representative in response to Bill C-55:
On October 8, the Canadian government introduced a bill in
Parliament that, if enacted, would ban foreign-owned publishers
from using the magazines they publish to carry any advertisement
aimed primarily at Canadian consumers.
Unfortunately, it leaves foreign-produced split-run periodicals
precisely where they have been for the past 30 years—shut out of
the Canadian market.
What is also disturbing about the bill is that it apparently
represents Canada's idea of compliance, with the panel and
appellate body reports on this subject.
Canada seems to believe that while it may violate the GATT for a
government to confiscate 80 percent of the advertising revenues
generated by imported split-run magazines, it is perfectly
acceptable to ban those advertisements altogether.
Canadian officials are justifying their new bill on the grounds
that it is governed by the anti-discrimination provisions of the
GATS rather than the GATT. Conveniently, Canada has made no
commitments regarding advertising under the GATS.
It is surprising that Canada would believe its GATT v. GATS
argument which the panel and the appellate body so soundly
rejected in 1997, has taken on credibility in 1998. The clear
and intended effect of Canada's proposed legislation is to
prevent imported magazines from being used to carry
advertisements aimed at the Canadian market.
This is precisely what Canada's 80 percent tax prevents as well.
Taken together, the bill, introduced on October 8 and
perpetuation of Canada's postal subsidy scheme, which the
Canadian government has also announced, send a very troubling
signal regarding Canada's seriousness in abiding by its
international obligations and, in particular, in observing both
the letter and the spirit of the WTO's dispute settlement rules.
For well over a year Canada has steadfastly refused to disclose
any of the alternatives it was considering or to consult with
interested governments regarding its compliance.
Then, after dragging out its response for almost 15 months, the
Canadian government has suddenly announced proposed replacement
measures that are still discriminatory and protectionist.
We strongly urge Canada to reconsider the course it has chosen.
The United States intends to react vigorously if that is not the
case.
The Asian flu on the financial markets is already affecting
Canada. Commodity prices are down and Canadian farmers may be
the hardest hit. The prices they are getting for their wheat and
barley are trending down. Canadian farmers are more dependent
than ever on United States markets. There is already a dispute
between the United States and Canada on wheat and barley. Why
would we want to do anything to make trade relations between our
two countries even worse than they are already?
As Ron Lund of the Association of Canadian Advertisers said,
Bill C-55 represents “the thin edge of the wedge” on trade
relations between Canada and the United States. If the heritage
minister pushes on split run magazines, then all trade is called
into question. It could be the tip of the iceberg. The United
States already has the support of the World Trade Organization on
split run magazines. Canada should stand up for itself when we
know we are in the right on trade issues, but why are we setting
out to provoke the United States when it has a quasi-judicial
ruling in its hip pocket?
The minister is putting Canadian farms, Canadian jobs, the
Canadian standard of living and international trade relations at
risk with Bill C-55. Does she have the support of the Minister
for International Trade, the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food and the Minister of Industry?
1540
I have shown how this bill is unnecessary. I have shown how
Bill C-55 is a bad law from the standpoint of international trade
and our domestic economy.
I want to look at what Bill C-55 does to fundamental rights,
freedoms and our legal rights. Under section 2 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms everyone is guaranteed “freedom
of expression, freedom of the press and other media of
communication and freedom of association”. Further, under
section 8 of the charter, “everyone has the right to be secure
against unreasonable search and seizure”.
I want to zero in on the word “unreasonable”. The opposite
word “reasonable” appears in section 1 of the charter and I
would like to quote that as well:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights
and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits
prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and
democratic society.
We have rights and freedoms under the charter. Those rights and
freedoms are guaranteed and are subject only to reasonable
limits. Bill C-55 would limit the ability of Canadian
advertisers to promote their products and services on the printed
pages of magazines. It limits their freedom of expression. It
limits their freedom of speech. Bill C-55 limits who publishers
and advertisers may associate with in promoting their products
and services.
If the heritage minister thought a split run publisher had sold
space to a Canadian advertiser she could send out her
investigators with Criminal Code powers to search and to seize
property. Magazine police. Is this reasonable?
Split run publishers are law-abiding people. Even the threat of
Bill C-55 on the Order Paper may be enough to limit split run
publishers accepting more advertising from Canadians. So is it
reasonable to create a force of magazine police who could be sent
out after law-abiding publishers and presses? These people are
respectable corporate citizens. They are not common criminals.
Even more, is it reasonable to limit the free expression and the
freedom of association in advertising? The Canadian publishing
industry is healthy. The commentary news and advertising from
Canadian publishers is read by a very large share of the Canadian
market. In fact, Canadian publishers are well received abroad.
We know that Canadians want to read things that are Canadian and
watch films that are Canadian. The market is there.
One Canadian publisher said: “I have been a relentless
opponent of these restrictive rules all the time. I have been in
this business nearly 30 years. As the proprietor of Saturday
Night, I am opposed to the restrictions that representatives
of the magazine industry are advocating on American
publications”. He continued: “We have been well received in
those foreign countries—the U.K., the U.S.A. and Israel—where
we do business. Canada should behave as those other countries
do”.
In fact, I have even heard that Conrad Black opposes this bill.
Bill C-55 is not reasonable. It is absurd. What is worse, Bill
C-55 is being used to put absurd limits on fundamental freedoms
and legal rights. Where is the sense in that?
There are also implications for the constitutional division of
powers between the provinces and the federal government.
1545
More than once, the minister has shown that she cares little
about the impact of federal law and policy on other levels of
government. She demonstrated that in her old portfolio of
environment. Last summer she undercut her own officials who had
worked for months on a plan for the town of Banff. The heritage
minister does not play well with others. And here we go again.
Nothing in constitutional or case law puts print media in
federal jurisdiction. I refer the House to section 91 of the
Constitution Act, 1867. Further, the act intrudes into
provincial jurisdiction on property and civil rights. I refer
members to subsection 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Bill
C-55 cannot be justified under the peace, order and good
government power of the federal government.
At this time, I want to read a paragraph from an article put
together by the C.D. Howe Institute. It is its summation on this
issue of restrictive legislation. I quote from the last page:
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 threatens Canada's commercial
interests, and that possibly accelerate, rather than prevent,
cultural assimilation,—
<—which this minister is so concerned about—
I could go on at length because there is all kinds of evidence
to show that this bill is the wrong thing to do for this
government.
It is clear that Bill C-55 is just asking for a series of
lengthy and costly legal challenges brought under constitutional
law, all at taxpayer expense. All this to deliver a thinly
veiled threat.
Bill C-55 does not serve the public interest, Canadians'
interests. In fact, it threatens Canadian trade and it threatens
jobs and Canadian livelihoods.
Bill C-55 is unnecessary. The Canadian magazine industry is
healthy and competitive. It does not require protection.
Canadian publishers are well received internationally. Bill C-55
represents a tired 19th century policy. In the 21st century, let
us concentrate on promotion, not protection.
With Bill C-55, the heritage minister treads into jurisdictions
where federal power and regulation do not belong.
Worst of all, Bill C-55 is a bad law that puts unreasonable
limits on free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of
association and uses magazine police or culture cops, as we have
been calling them, to threaten law-abiding citizens. It is a
very bad law.
In view of this, I want to move the following amendment. I
move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by
foreign periodical publishers, be not now read a second time, but
that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
1550
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The amendment is
receivable.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Madam Speaker, we are
debating today, at second reading, Bill C-55 respecting
advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.
This bill was made necessary after Sports Illustrated used
electronic means to circumvent Tariff 9958, 1965, which
prohibits the import of split-run magazines, that is foreign
magazines containing advertising directed at the Canadian
market. Sports Illustrated circumvented Canadian regulations by
electronically importing its editorial content and printing its
magazine in Canada.
In 1995, Canada enacted Bill C-103 providing for an 80% excise
tax on the earnings from the sale of advertising in such
magazines. Four measures including this one were declared
contrary to the GATT agreements signed by Canada in 1947 and
renewed in 1994.
As a result, Canada had to review its policy of support to
magazines and its legislation providing for an 80% excise tax in
particular.
Today, the heritage minister is putting forward a bill denying
foreign magazines access to the Canadian advertising market. The
government's position is that Canada has the right to protect
its advertising market because advertising is a service and,
under the General Agreement on Trade in Services, advertising is
exempt.
Is exempt any industry not included in the list of industries
covered by the agreement.
There is a cultural exception when an agreement includes a text
providing for the exclusion of part of that agreement.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees in principle with the bill at second
reading. However, we will listen carefully to the
representations that will be made to the committee on this
issue. In 1995, former minister Michel Dupuy had assured us that
his Bill C-103 was in compliance with international trade rules,
and now the Minister of Canadian Heritage is making the same
claim.
Let us take a look at the background of this legislation.
In 1990, Time-Warner received assurances from Revenue Canada that
its plan to publish a Canadian edition of Sports Illustrated
would not contravene tariff number 9958.
On August 15, 1990, Investment Canada confirmed that the
magazine Sports Illustrated in Canada would not be subject to
the Investment Canada Act.
Consequently, Time-Warner thought it was authorized to move into
Canada.
On January 7, 1993, Time-Warner announced that it would publish a
split run edition of Sports Illustrated.
Of course, since the Minister of Communication had not been
informed of the decisions made by his colleague from industry,
he objected, invoking tariff number 9958, to a split run edition
of Sports Illustrated in Canada.
1555
On April 5, 1993, Sports Illustrated published its first issue
out of Richmond Hill. Since its publication did not extend
across the border physically, tariff 9958 did not apply.
Rather than take immediate action, the government ordered a
report on the magazine industry in April 1993.
In December 1993, Time Warner announced its intention of
increasing the number of split runs from six to twelve a year.
On March 24, 1994, the task force published its report. It
recommended applying an excise tax of 80% on split run
magazines, but exempting Sports Illustrated on condition that it
not publish more than six issues a year. The Canadian industry
opposed the latter part of the recommendation, and rightly so.
In December 1995, Bill C-103 was passed.
On March 11, 1996, Mickey Kantor, the American trade secretary,
announced that he was filing a complaint with the World Trade
Organization to protest, first, the 80% excise tax on split run
magazines under Bill C-103, second, the lower postal rates
granted Canadian publications, third, the postal subsidy and,
fourth, tariff 9958 making it illegal to import split runs into
Canada.
On June 30, 1997, the WTO went along with the American arguments
and outlawed the four measures for protecting Canadian
magazines, stipulating that, since magazines were goods,
Canadian policies to protect them had to be consistent with GATT
rules on goods.
In August 1997, Canada advised the WTO that it would respect the
ruling.
In July and October 1997, the Government of Canada announced a
series of measures to comply with the decision of the WTO and
promote the Canadian and Quebec magazine industry.
In order to comply with the decision of the WTO, Canada proposed
the following, beginning with the tariff code 9958 measure.
This code prevented the importing into Canada of split run
magazines. It will be repealed by an order in council.
Second, Bill C-103 amended the Excise Act. This amendment
authorized the government to levy an 80% excise tax on Canadian
advertising revenues declared by periodical publishers. The act
will be amended by a ways and means motion.
Third, the postal subsidy. With this measure, Heritage Canada
paid Canada Post nearly $50 million to have it accord certain
magazines reduced rates.
This measure will be maintained, except that Heritage Canada
will now put this money into accounts the magazines have with
Canada Post.
Fourth, preferential postal rates. This measure would allow
Canada Post to give Canadian magazines a preferential rate. The
rates for foreign magazines will be reduced to the preferential
Canadian rate. This measure will cost Canada Post $16 million.
I will now deal with reaction to the legislation so far.
Canadian publishers applauded the introduction of this
legislation. The president of the Magazine Association of
Canada, François de Gaspé Beaubien, even accompanied the
Minister of Canadian Heritage during the briefing that followed
the bill's introduction.
For the association, the issue was to avoid having foreign
publishers, who make their profits in foreign markets, competing
with Canadian magazines by offering lower advertising rates than
the Canadians could offer.
Canadian magazines get more than 60% of their revenues from
advertising sales. The association also did not want the loss
of advertising revenue made up by grants. Not only was this
unrealistic—it would have taken hundreds of millions of
dollars—but it also involved some ethical issues. What they
wanted was a measure that would protect editorial independence.
The Association of Canadian Advertisers declared its intent to
challenge the legislation under the charter.
However, the legal experts involved in drafting the legislation
are of the opinion that the association has little chance of
success, because it is merely confirming a practice that has
been in existence for several decades in Canada.
1600
The American Secretary of State for Commerce has indicated,
however, that he will again challenge these provisions for
protecting the Canadian advertising market.
The Financial Post of Saturday, October 10, 1998 reported on
page 4 that the United States wants to wage another battle with
Canada to block the bill we have before us today, because in
their opinion it contains protectionist and discriminatory
provisions.
Yet those provisions have but one objective: to prevent U.S.
competition with the Canadian magazine industry. The Americans
feel that Canada is trying to find some new ploys for getting
out of its obligations under GATT.
However, the U.S. government has yet to follow up on its
original statements.
In its dispute against the United States concerning Sports
Illustrated, Canada lost, because it was established, under the
WTO dispute settlement mechanism, that the magazine was a good
and that the 1997 GATT rules did apply, since the advertising
must use this good as a vehicle. And, as we all know, there is
no cultural exemption clause in the GATT.
By entitling the bill an Act respecting advertising services
supplied by foreign periodical publishers, and by prohibiting in
clause 3 foreign publishers from supplying advertising services
directed at the Canadian market, the government wants to ensure
that the legislation before us today deals with advertising and
therefore falls under the General Agreement of Tariffs and
Trade.
Since Canada did not include advertising in the list of services
subject to the Agreement, the Department of Canadian Heritage
believes that its bill, if challenged, will stand up scrutiny at
the WTO.
The Bloc Quebecois hopes that the government is right in this
case. Even if importation of split run editions has a lesser
impact in Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois does not have the slightest
interest in seeing the Canadian cultural industry weakened,
since several of our magazines are published in symbiosis with
Canadian periodicals and would thus be affected by a policy
which would open the Canadian advertising market to foreign
publishers.
We need to be reminded however that the WTO decision regarding
Sports Illustrated shed some light on the weakness of the
Canadian vision in terms of protecting our cultural industry in
international trade agreements.
The WTO decided that advertizing—a service—needing a magazine as a
vehicle—a good—a good that could be replaced by other imported
goods—the WTO had even compared the content of various
magazines—Canada could not exempt these goods from its
obligations under the 1994 GATT, a better and improved version
of the 1947 GATT.
Thus experts were of the opinion that several measures aimed at
protecting culture using a tangible vehicle could lead to
complaints to the WTO under the 1994 GATT. The Americans could
then circumvent the cultural exemption provided for by NAFTA.
Experts who appeared before the heritage committee and the
Canadian Conference of the Arts have urged the Canadian
government to take more proactive steps to protect Canadian and
Quebec cultural interests under international trade agreements.
As the multilateral agreement on investment, the now infamous
MAI, which was being negotiated at the OECD, just hit a major
stumbling block, it is timely for the government to adopt a real
strategy to defend cultural exemption under every international
trade agreement. Of course, in this case, we are talking about a
home made cultural exemption protecting the current and future
capacity of Canada and Quebec to take measures promoting their
respective cultures.
Negotiations are planned for the turn of the century. They are
supposed to deal with services and maybe investments. The 1994
GATT contains a major flaw in that it does not provide for
cultural exemption.
Neither does the General Agreement on Trade in Services. At
most, it provides for exemptions for services not on the list of
services to which the agreement applies.
The Bloc Quebecois is therefore calling on the government to
give some thought to the experts' and artists' proposal for a
real team to be constituted, which would include artists and
representatives from Quebec, with a view to raising awareness
across the country of the importance of obtaining a cultural
exception.
1605
In this connection, Canada could play the same role as the
Minister of Foreign Affairs did in the land mine issue.
This multifaceted team, on which Quebec would play a full role,
must be given the expertise and financial resources required for
it to do a proper lobbying job. The tools are in place. Now
what is needed is the political desire to make use of them, and
to get to work.
In Statistic Canada's 1997 edition, in the chapter entitled
“Canada, its culture, heritage and identity”, we learn that, in
1994, Canada had 1,400 periodicals, that industry revenues
totalled $867 million with $520 million coming from advertising,
and that the profit margin was 6% in the anglophone markets and
13% in the francophone markets. In English Canada, 80% of
magazines at newsstands are foreign, whereas in Quebec the
proportion is 20%, according to the February 26, 1997 issue of
La Presse.
The report by the task force on the periodical industry entitled
“A matter of balance” indicates, at page 40, that Canadians buy
$700 million worth of American magazines, while Americans buy
$60 million worth of Canadian magazines. Canada imports from
the States 25 times more magazines than it exports there.
Some 95% of Canadian French language periodicals are sold within
the province, and Canadian publishers draw only 25% of their
circulation revenues within their own market.
According to The Citizen, a Heritage Canada study, which we were
unfortunately unable to obtain a copy of, even under the Access
to Information Act—and I could even mention that the case is
being appealed to the information commissioner—concluded that 40
American magazines were selling well enough in Canada, over
50,000 copies, to make a split run worthwhile; that 40 Canadian
magazines were on the point of going bankrupt; and that the
American magazines would take over 40% of the advertising
revenue invested by Canadians in Canadian magazines, which would
be disastrous for this cultural sector if allowed to continue
unchecked, unless we take steps to come to its assistance.
As I entered the House, one of my colleagues, the member for
Repentigny, handed me the fall 1998 issue of the Canadian
Parliamentary Review, volume 21, No. 3, the magazine of the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Canada section, which
contains a wonderful article by Dennis Browne about Canadian
culture's uphill battle with international trade and split runs.
I will, since I have the time, quote from this absolutely
extraordinary article, which I urge my Reform Party colleagues
to read. Naturally, in a parliamentary democracy, everyone is
entitled to one's opinion, and one might be the only one to hold
a particular opinion and still be right, but I think it
important that the Reform Party members give more thought to the
interests of Canadian culture than to party ideology, which
sometimes keeps us from seeing clearly.
Here is what Mr. Browne had to say. He writes, on page 21:
To understand the magazine case, we must know a bit about the
magazine industry. Following the hon. member's speech, it seems
to me he needs to learn a thing or two about the magazine
industry. The most important point is that the industry has two
income streams and two cost streams. The income streams are
earnings from subscriptions and news stand sales, and earnings
from the sale of advertising included in the magazine.
The cost streams streams are the cost of the magazine's
editorial content, including photos and articles, and the costs
of printing and distributing the magazine. In the Sports
Illustrated case, it appears the revenues generated from news
stand sales and subscriptions are more than adequate to cover
the production and distribution costs of this magazine.
Prior to the case, Time Warner was selling about 140,000 copies
of each edition in Canada.
The business had been going on for many years and I do not think
the company was losing money.
The other big cost, editorial content, was fully paid for by
advertising sold to American advertisers. This case was brought
to the WTO by the United States to challenge Canadian measures
that effectively denied American magazines access to Canadian
advertisers.
Thus the case was not about market access, or even about
ordinary profits. It was about super profits. When the editorial
content is already paid for and the selling price fully covers
the production and distribution costs, practically every dollar
paid for Canadian advertising in Sports Illustrated will be pure
profit for the publisher.
With their existing high levels of circulation in Canada, they
already had the cake; so they went for the icing.
The WTO decision is not going to lead to sales of more copies of
Sports Illustrated in Canada. It is just going to make the
business of selling the same number of copies much more
profitable. But what will be the Time Warner's icing is the
Canadian magazine publishers' cake. The total amount of money
routinely spent by Canadian advertisers in the print media is
not increasing. Every Canadian dollar spent for advertising in
American magazines will reduce the revenue pool available to
Canadian magazine publishers.
There should be no doubt about American magazines being able to
attract Canadian advertising.
With their editorial costs already being paid, they can readily
discount the price for advertising by as much as 80% and still
make money.
Canadian publishers will not be able to compete with this type
of cut-throat competition. Without their advertising revenues,
Canadian magazines will not be able to pay for good quality
editorial content. If that is the result, the magazines will
appeal less and less to consumers and Canada could lose one of
its forums—a very important forum—for cultural expression. To
protect the advertising income stream for Canadian magazine
publishers, Canada had put in place a combination of measures,
four of which were challenged in the WTO case.
The import ban on split-run magazines is clearly a breach of the
GATT principle calling for the elimination of quotas. An import
ban is the ultimate “quota” since imports are zero.
Canada sought to justify the ban under the exception permitting
quotas “necessary to secure compliance with domestic
regulations”—in this case an income tax regulation that
disallows business deductions for advertising placed in split-run
editions.
1610
I could read another excerpt from the article which would show
that the important thing is, above all, to defend Canada's
cultural industry, which is something the Bloc Quebecois has
always done with great determination since coming here, for a
simple, good and single reason.
We in the Bloc Quebecois feel it is important for Canada to have
a very strong culture, a very strong identity, because when we
are sovereign we want to have as our neighbour a country that is
capable of separating its identity from that of its American
neighbours, its culture from the American entertainment
industry.
Finally, however, the Bloc Quebecois does regret that the
Liberals have themselves been responsible for some measures that
have been counter-productive to the development of the magazine
industry. First of all, they made a substantial reduction in
the postal subsidy. In 1989, this was $220 million, and when
the Liberals came into power it was $77 million.
The previous government had, of course, already drastically cut
subsidies, but the Liberals were no more capable of protecting
this sector of our cultural industry, for between 1994 and 1998
they reduced the subsidy considerably again, by 40%, so the $77
million of subsidies ended up at $47.3 million.
Second, during the election campaign, the Liberal government,
the present Prime Minister at its head, travelled across Canada
promising to abolish the GST on all reading material. Yet, as we
speak that has still not happened.
1615
With these two counterproductive measures, the Liberal
government itself did enormous damage to the cultural industry.
Since surpluses are appearing in the Canadian government's
budget, I hope that the Liberals will remember their promises to
the Canadian people and take measures to promote literacy in
Canada and in Quebec by abolishing the GST, at least on reading
material, and by increasing subsidies as required, so that the
cultural industry of magazines and publishing can do more than
just survive.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I understand, if you seek it, there would be unanimous
consent to allow me to move concurrence in the 13th report of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
I further understand that there is unanimous consent to put the
question forthwith without the need of a vote.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
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 second time and referred to a
committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I might just say on the last matter that there may have
been consultations but not everybody was consulted. I only gave
unanimous consent out of respect for the judgment of the hon.
member, not because there had been consultations or discussion.
I am rising to speak to Bill C-55. It has been an interesting
debate so far. The contribution of the Reform Party on this
matter shows why Liberal government members continue to have it
so easy. They bring forward a bill to try to protect Canadian
magazines like the Legion Magazine and various other ones.
They have what I would call the political advantage of having an
official opposition that wants to attack such a proposition in
the name of unfettered free enterprise or however it is that they
defend this indefensible position.
From the outset I say that the NDP supports the bill with some
reservations. Mostly our reservations come in the form of
wishing the minister either would or could go further. What Bill
C-55 will do, if it succeeds, is entrench the status quo. There
is grandparenting of some existing arrangements which I would
like to have seen challenged. There is nothing in the bill that
particularly promotes Canadian magazines but it is a form of
protecting them. I do not see anything wrong with protecting
Canadian magazines.
When I listened to my Reform colleagues it was almost as if
there was something wrong with the word protect when it came to
this matter. It is also important to promote but there is
nothing wrong with protect. These are the same people who talk
day in and day out about protecting Canadians from various other
things like crime and various threats to their security. There
is nothing wrong with protecting Canadians from the economic
power of the American magazine industry. I do not think that is
something we should apologize for.
We are glad that the government has moved to find a way within
the limits of the World Trade Organization to do what Canadians
have traditionally done in this industry. Our quarrel comes with
the fact that government members are not critical enough of the
agreements in which they find themselves. I am talking
particularly about the WTO.
There is a fundamental contradiction between the ideology, the
world view embodied in the World Trade Organization, and the
whole notion of the protection of culture. This is something the
minister understood well in a previous incarnation. Perhaps she
understands it every bit as well in this incarnation but is not
as able to say so from where she sits now.
However there is the fundamental contradiction between culture
and free trade as it is understood at the WTO and NAFTA. The
fact is that our previous policy has been tested against the
ideology and the world view of the WTO and has been shot down.
1620
It is fine for the government to come forward and try another
way. What would also be useful would be for the government to
say maybe this should tell us something about the world view of
the WTO and about the wisdom of signing these kinds of
agreements. That would be refreshing but we have not heard that
from the minister and we have not heard it from the government.
Instead what we heard the other day, not from the Minister for
Canadian Heritage but from the Minister for International Trade,
was a government clinging right to the end to the idea of trying
to preserve the multilateral agreement on investment, which many
Canadians feel would pose a similar threat to Canadian culture,
the kind of threat that various provisions at the WTO now
provide.
This is an occasion to reflect on the larger conflict between
protecting culture and the whole dominant world view or the
dominant global ideology of free trade embodied in the WTO and in
NAFTA. That world view was to be embodied in the multilateral
agreement on investment but fortunately it will not be because
the talks on the MAI at the OECD in Paris have broken down.
Why have they broken down? They broke down because Canadians
and others all over the world, but finally the French socialist
government, said this was an unacceptable way of setting up the
relationship between governments and investors and between
governments and corporations.
This relationship that was to be institutionalized through the
MAI would have given the rights of investors and corporations a
status and power that would have threatened the ability of
democratically elected governments to properly exercise their
sovereignty in the interest of their respective citizenry,
particularly in the area of culture because as we know the French
government wanted a complete carve-out of culture. They did not
want the MAI to deal with culture at all.
This is an opportunity for us to reflect on this larger
question. In her opening speech I heard the minister talk about
standing up for Canada. Then she said what I think was kind of
strange. She said the way we stand up for Canada is that we
abide by the rules set by these global organizations.
I would say that Canada has obligations when it enters into
agreements. When we respect those obligations it might be argued
that we are doing the right thing from the point of view of
international relationships, but I would not call it standing up
for Canada if the obligations we are respecting are arguably not
in the interest of Canada or in this case of Canadian culture.
I would say standing up for Canada is to point out how
inadequate the rules of the particular organization are and seek
to change them rather than try to somehow get around them or try
another way without really admitting that we have probably signed
on to something that we should not have. That is what I think we
have here with respect to the Canadian signing of the WTO, which
is far different from the GATT.
Whatever could be said about the GATT prior to the creation of
the WTO in 1994 there was a voluntary aspect to it. The WTO is a
quite different matter. The government should have thought much
more seriously than it did before it signed on so uncritically to
such an agreement as the WTO.
1625
The member for Dauphin—Swan River who spoke for the Reform
Party quoted somebody from the National Film Board—I think it
was the chairperson—saying that the whole notion of protection
of culture was becoming less and less sustainable. He seemed to
indicate that he felt that person was perhaps making a fiscal
argument. I was not there so I can only speculate, but I think
another way in which protection is becoming less and less
sustainable is the agreements the government keeps entering into.
It is not a question of fiscal sustainability. It is a question
of sustainability in the face of repeated signing on to
agreements like NAFTA and the WTO and the MAI, were it to have
been signed, that put in jeopardy our ability to sustain policies
which protect Canadian culture. It is not a question of
sustainability in any fiscal sense. It is a question of being
able to sustain policies in the face of signing agreements that
constitute a challenge to these policies. I would say this is
something the government ought to be looking at.
It is not a surprise to me, though, that Reform Party members
seem so blasé about the potential disappearance of so many
Canadian magazines and almost seem to make a virtue out of
allowing American magazines to penetrate even further and
dominate the Canadian market. I think they have a fascination
for American culture that sometimes I find disturbing. We saw
that only recently when we heard that the leader of the Reform
Party's first reaction when he thought something problematic was
happening in the country, that is the sovereignists might win the
referendum, was to call the American ambassador and invite him to
participate in some post-referendum process.
We support the bill with reservations. We regret that the
government is not willing to challenge the agreements that make
this kind of legislation possible. We regret that the government
continues to pursue in what we think is an uncritical way further
agreements like the MAI which would inhibit the ability of the
government to act to protect culture. We regret that the
minister of trade, instead of saying yes, the MAI is not only
dead but should be dead, seems to be saying the MAI is dead and
devoting the rest of his life to finding out how it can be
revived, to finding a new venue for it perhaps at the WTO.
This does not give us any comfort. It does not give any comfort
to Canadians who feel the Canadian government should have taken a
position much more like the French government which found the
whole underlying premise and intention of the agreement to be
inadequate.
With all these reservations and regrets we nonetheless say that
the bill should go to committee. We hope in the very limited way
the Liberals seem able to act the bill will be successful in
protecting Canadian culture and Canadian magazines.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as
follows: The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, the
Atlantic Groundfish Strategy.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise today before the House to address Bill
C-55, the Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act.
First I want to state my position relative to issues including
trade. Our party continues to support and believe in the
intrinsic strength of trade. We recognize that if we are to
enable Canadians to prosper in a global and increasingly
competitive environment we need to seek ways to attach the hands
of Canadians to the levers of opportunity.
1630
We should not try to protect them from all the risks of
globalization if in doing so we prevent them from participating
in the opportunities and the rewards potentially gained from full
and unfettered participation.
That being the case, we have strong reservations about
unfettered free market dogma that may denigrate or reduce our
ability to protect our culture. The Conservative government of
the past with the free trade agreement sought to protect culture.
We recognize that Canadian culture, particularly with a
relatively small population—effectively we are a mouse sleeping
next to an elephant—is in a unique situation.
We cannot take a cookie cutter approach or some type of economic
dogma that will effectively say how we should pursue this. We
can believe in free trade. We can believe in achieving success
in a global environment and still stand in this parliament to
protect the ability of Canadians to speak to each other through
cultural vehicles like the Canadian magazine industry.
I believe many of us in this House feel quite strongly about the
MAI, that there is a need for and significant benefit to be
derived from a multilateral agreement on investment. However,
that does not mean any multilateral agreement on investment.
There were some serious flaws in the MAI and culture may not have
been adequately protected under it. That was the objection
France took to the MAI.
That being the case, I believe it is in the best interests of
all Canadians for parliamentarians and this government to work
toward a multilateral agreement on investment.
It is important before we pursue trade agreements that we
increase the level of dialogue between Canadians and their
governments. That is why we need to follow the model of the
Australian government which in 1996 introduced the Australian
model for treaty negotiation which increased significantly the
dialogue between the federal and provincial governments. In fact
municipal governments should be consulted as well because these
governments are affected significantly by the federal
government's engagement in trade treaty processes and deserve to
be consulted.
If we do that we will help decrease the demonization that has
occurred because of globalization. If we open up the process to
Canadians and allow them to see clearly that globalization is not
all bad we will achieve far more than the current behind closed
doors strategy that the government is pursuing.
The government developed this piece of legislation to help
protect our Canadian magazine industry following last October's
WTO ruling against Canadian imposed excise tax and custom tariffs
on split run magazines entering from the U.S. In the ruling the
WTO maintained that these measures contravened existing
international free trade agreements.
Bill C-55 is a very important piece of legislation. Aside from
providing support to our Canadian magazine publishers it sends a
clear message to all Canadians that we are intent on protecting
and maintaining our cultural sovereignty in the midst of ever
increasing pressures from global forces, particularly, as I
mentioned before, the U.S. I described it as being analogous to
a mouse next to an elephant and in a cultural sense that is very
accurate.
The pop culture which emanates from the U.S. is very difficult
to compete with, but I would argue that our Canadian cultural
policies have resulted in some significant successes by providing
an incubational cultural setting to musicians such as Sarah
McLachlan, Bryan Adams or K.D. Lang who have gone on to become
very successful. These individuals started as a result of
cultural policies in Canada which enabled them to grow and
develop their skills in the Canadian marketplace first.
The Canadian magazine industry is similar to that. We want to
protect our cultural integrity in Canada.
It has been a major priority of any trade discussion.
Conservative governments fought to protect culture in trade
discussions as early as 1988. Most recently the stumbling block
in the MAI for both Canada and France was largely due to the
reticence of OECD partners to engage in more stringent protection
for cultural industries.
1635
It is very important to note that the WTO in its decision was
not questioning Canada's right to protect its cultural
industries. It objected to a policy that directly targeted U.S.
magazines. Rather than target U.S. magazines directly, Bill C-55
will focus its attention on putting restraints on advertising
services. Essentially, Bill C-55 will restrict the sale of
advertising directed at the Canadian market to Canadian
publications.
It should be noted that U.S. magazines can still sell Canadian
advertising in their magazines. However, these advertisements
must appear throughout their North American publications. They
cannot be solely targeted toward the Canadian market.
The bill contains provisions that would allow the government to
impose stiff fines as high as $250,000 on foreign publishers who
contravene this legislation.
This is a very complex issue and Bill C-55 seeks to address it.
I am somewhat concerned about the ability of legislation of this
type to control or to effectively try to regulate what is going
to become an increasingly difficult industry to regulate.
Magazines are one thing. The Internet is another. Increasingly
Canadians are going to be reading publications, newspapers,
magazines and books on their computers.
These are questions we have to ask. They deserve significant
diligence, research and rigour to ensure that we develop public
policies that are not only relevant in 1998 but are relevant as
we enter the 21st century.
I believe that Bill C-55 is the right legislation now. We have
significant concerns about the bill and, hopefully, they can be
resolved. We have concerns about the effects of harmonizing
commercial postal rates, which I will elaborate on later in my
discussion.
Some people may be wondering why we should impose measures to
protect our Canadian magazine industry. Reform members have
expressed their consternation that we would try to protect the
Canadian magazine industry. Reform has 60 culture critics in its
caucus. Unfortunately most Canadians do not share their views
that Canadian culture should not be protected. We feel very
strongly about this in our caucus. That may be one of the
defining differences between a Progressive Conservative and
Reform leadership at this juncture.
There are very important reasons for us to protect this
particular industry. The Canadian magazine industry employs a
large number of Canadians and pumps millions of dollars into our
economy. It provides employment opportunities to thousands of
Canadians. Many of our most distinguished writers have developed
their skills through the Canadian magazine industry and have gone
on to succeed internationally.
The Canadian market is one of the most open markets in the world
for imported magazines. Imports account for 50% of magazine
sales in Canada and over 80% of newsstand space. To say that
somehow we have inordinate amounts of protection for the Canadian
magazine industry which is preventing foreign publications from
entering is an easily debunked argument.
Despite the intense competition from foreign magazines, Canadian
magazines continue to attract their share of viewers, allowing
them to compete in a very competitive industry. At this stage,
without this type of legislation, we would not be able to ensure
that Canadian magazines would survive.
I look at it from a national unity perspective as well.
It is very important for us to protect our ability as Canadians
to converse with each other. The Canadian magazine industry
plays a very important cultural role in defining who we are as a
people and where we stand as a nation. Culture defines our
beliefs and our values.
1640
We are not automatically born with a culture. We may be born
into a culture, but it is something we learn. It is a nurturing
thing. It is one of the things I treasure as a Canadian.
One of the cultural entities I treasure as a Canadian is the
CBC. That is another defining difference between a Progressive
Conservative and Reform leadership at this juncture, although
Reform has a lot of very good members, all of whom will be
welcomed into our ranks after Saturday.
We need Canada's magazine industry to prosper so that future
generations of young Canadians have the opportunity to learn more
about their country and to gain a better understanding of peoples
across this great nation. One of the things Canada suffers as a
sparsely populated, large geographic mass is that there is not
enough opportunity for our peoples to speak with each other and
learn more about each other. One of the ways to facilitate that
is to protect our magazine industry.
The member for West Nova, a member of our caucus, is on the
heritage committee and has studied this issue at length. I
always have some concerns about measures that may be viewed as
being protectionist. In discussions with him I have learned a
great deal about the uniqueness of the Canadian magazine industry
and the importance of this industry to our culture, to our young
Canadians and to our education system. I share his views that
the magazine industry needs to be protected.
Successive governments have implemented laws designed to help
Canadian publishers gain sufficient advertising dollars to remain
competitive in this market. The issue beginning in 1993 with
Sports Illustrated opened the door to competition that
would have gutted the Canadian magazine industry if it were
allowed to go ahead unfettered.
If we look at the fact that Canadian publishers rely on
advertising revenue for anywhere from 65% to 100% of their
income, it is imperative that we intervene to protect them
against potential competition from U.S. competitors in this very
important cultural sector.
Advertising plays a pivotal role in modern day society. It has
increasingly become a cornerstone of communication. We are
seeing it everywhere. Prior to radio and TV, magazines could
depend on receiving the bulk of advertising revenue. However,
they have since struggled to maintain their own niche and their
own market to survive.
Advertising has changed in the last 10 years more than it has
changed in the last 60 years. I would argue that due to
technology and emerging global markets we are going to see the
Canadian magazine industry and the entire media changing so
rapidly that in a fairly short period of time we are going to
have to evaluate the real needs and how we are going to go about
protecting Canadian culture in the future.
It is going to become increasingly difficult. We have to become
more rigorous. We need to work with other countries,
particularly countries with a small population base, to develop
strategies to protect their cultural interests. At the same time
we do not want to hold them back or handcuff them to the Luddite
mentality that somehow trade is going to hurt the country. Trade
is not the enemy here. However, unfettered global forces, when
an incubational industry is not ready, can have a demonstrably
negative effect on a particular industry or sector. What we are
saying is that we need a transitional strategy to allow Canadian
publications to get to the next step.
At some point, and it is already happening, Canadian cultural
entities cannot only compete globally but can succeed beyond our
wildest dreams globally. However, it takes an incubational
structure to allow that to occur in a large country with a very
small group of people. We must never forget that.
1645
One size does not fit all in economic policy; one size does not
fit all in trade policy. With the combined impact of
globalization and what has been in some areas unfettered market
forces, we must be careful to ensure we attach people's hands to
the labours of the global opportunities and that we provide
people with the opportunities to succeed in a global environment.
It may be such a thing that Marx may have been wrong about
communism, but if we are not careful, it may prove that he was
right about capitalism.
We have a great deal of work to do. While we continue to
espouse, support and develop freer markets with greater trade
opportunities, we must ensure that we do not forget the people we
represent. We need to ensure they can compete and succeed in
those markets.
It means things like a vibrant cultural industry. It means a
strong set of educational policies in Canada to provide young
Canadians with the skills to compete and to succeed in a global
knowledge based society.
In the national unity context, we are about to see an election
in Quebec. Many of us are watching this election, as we have
watched those elections in the past, with a great deal of concern
and interest. We need to ensure particularly in a national unity
context at this critical juncture that we facilitate the ability
of Canadians to speak to each other in a very profound way.
This is not the time for allowing the Canadian magazine industry
to wither on the vine.
This bill is far from perfect. Despite having a full year to
consult with the leading international trade experts, countless
legal advisers and representatives from Canada's publishing
industry, we find that a number of issues still need to be
clarified.
As I mentioned earlier the postal rate changes could have
adverse effects on small community based publications. Legion
branches, which previously enjoyed postal rate subsidies, could
be in danger of losing this assistance. That is a great concern.
We do not do enough for our veterans. We need to work harder to
support our veterans and our legions. The same could be said for
members of religious denominations who provide their
congregations with periodicals and updates of church activities.
Because those organizations are not charging their members for
their materials, they are no longer entitled to direct postal
rate subsidies as are other Canadian magazine publishers. This
issue must be addressed by the minister either through amendments
or regulations. I am certain the member for West Nova will be
providing and promoting appropriate amendments for this.
The last section of the bill which relates to the grandfathering
clause must be more clearly defined. As it stands, the bill
appears to restrict important contributors to our Canadian
magazine industry such as Reader's Digest and Time Warner from
ever expanding their present interests to future investment
possibilities. I understand that was not the nature or intent of
the bill. We have to be careful in this House and in the other
place to always beware of the law of unintended consequences and
to be extremely careful, rigorous and thorough in the legislation
we produce.
In short, we support, with some reservations, Bill C-55. We
believe that Canadians need to compete and succeed in a global
market, but at the same time we have a vibrant cultural industry
in Canada that is too important to throw away.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca.
I rise today to voice my opposition to Bill C-55, the foreign
publishers advertising services act.
I have been in this place for close to one and a half years. I
have had the opportunity to observe and interact with members of
both sides of the House.
At this juncture, I would like to tell my colleague when he said
that the Reform member should join his caucus, I extend to him
the invitation to come and join us.
1650
What separates the official opposition from the government is
not that we have more concern for the people of Canada. What
differentiates us is that we have a different view on how to
achieve a better society for all.
We both want the same thing, a prosperous and tolerant Canada
where all can participate openly. However, while this government
feels that this can only be achieved through the cumbersome,
heavy hand of central planning and intervention, the official
opposition believes that freedom and having faith in people is
the right road to take.
At a time when countries around the world are realizing that
straight intervention has its limits, this government continues
its policies of trying to run almost every facet of Canadian
society. Bill C-55 continues this long tradition of Liberal
interference in the lives of Canadians.
Before I deal specifically with Bill C-55, allow me to elaborate
on my last point.
Many of my Reform colleagues have spent a considerable amount of
energy questioning this government on the Canadian Wheat Board.
As we know, the wheat board dictates the price at which wheat may
be sold, thereby robbing our farming communities of the freedom
to sell their goods. Interfering in market forces is no different
than the central planning that the east bloc characterized before
reaching its senses in the late 1980s.
Another key example is the high taxation levels that Canadians
and Canadian businesses continue to endure. Canadians have seen
their income shrink as they are forced to transfer more and more
of what they earn to the government coffers.
All agree that more money left in the pockets of individuals and
businesses will benefit the economy. While the finance minister
boasts of balancing the budget, he does not reveal that the way
he achieved this was on the backs of Canadian taxpayers and
businesses.
The truth of the matter is that taxes have increased since this
government took power in 1993. The fact that this government
reneged on its commitment to scrap the GST is proof of its
commitment to high taxation.
It is no secret there exists a direct correlation between tax
levels and job creation. Is it a mere coincidence that the two
provinces with the lowest income tax levels, Ontario and my home
province of Alberta, lead the nation in creating employment.
Perhaps the minister should ponder whether the Canadian
periodical sector could benefit more from lower taxes rather than
from eliminating competition.
Today we heard a news report highlighting the plight of Canada's
working class. The study released by the Centre for Social
Justice states that working families are being devalued in
Canada. Families are working harder than they did 10 years ago
and have less money to show for their increased efforts. Between
1989 and 1996 the average family suffered a $4,000 decline in
their income. Why does the finance minister not realize that the
time has come for tax relief for the middle and lower income
families and businesses?
I have used the issues of the wheat board and taxes to point to
the fact that this government has a track record of intervening
in the economy, often with less than stellar consequences.
Bill C-55 continues this Liberal tradition of intervention and
state control. While Bill C-55 most definitely has economic
ramifications, I would like to focus on its cultural dimensions.
This bill seeks to protect our domestic periodical industry from
outside competition. It attempts to do this by prohibiting the
right of foreign publications to sell advertising space to
companies targeting a Canadian audience.
This would free up advertising dollars for Canadian publications.
1655
The Minister of Canadian Heritage introduces this bill claiming
it will protect Canadian heritage. However, the minister and
indeed this government has failed to recognize the essence of
what culture is.
Culture comes as the natural consequence of economic activity.
The key word in the last statement is natural. Culture survives
and thrives best when it is allowed to grow in a natural state
free of artificial crutches and interference. Culture and art
must be promoted but never protected and created by the state.
When the state starts dictating what culture is, it becomes a
slippery slope toward when artistic and cultural freedom end and
when state propaganda begins.
I would like to turn my attention to some of the specifics of
this piece of legislation. Subclause 20(c) of the bill allows
for the minister to make regulations respecting criteria to
determine whether advertising services are directed to the
Canadian market. By allowing the minister to make orders in
council with respect to the nature of advertising, Bill C-55
essentially gives the minister the authority to make laws dealing
with international trade without passing them through parliament.
Moreover clauses 4, 5 and 6 allow the minister to create her own
culture police to investigate whether foreign publications are
carrying advertising geared toward the Canadian market.
An hon. member: Sheila's cops.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Sheila's cops, cultural cops, as my
colleague said.
This is an unparalleled power which essentially gives the
minister the right to create her own surveillance police. This
kind of thing may fly in other countries, but I do not think
Canadians will accept such a system.
Because of these issues, I find that Bill C-55 affords the
minister authority which goes beyond what our parliamentary
democracy should allow.
The bill's extraterritorial application is another area I would
like to address. As I have mentioned, the role of Bill C-55 is
to protect our domestic periodical industry. The bill makes it
an offence for any officer, director or agent of a corporation to
run a split run edition, that is, a magazine with editorial
content similar to its foreign original but with advertising
aimed at the Canadian audience.
It is quite ironic that this government is introducing such a
bill after it was so critical of the U.S. Helms-Burton act which
sought to hold Canadian companies liable for doing business in
Cuba. Perhaps the ministers of heritage and foreign affairs
should get together once in a while to ensure that there is some
semblance of consistency in the government's policies.
As parliamentarians we must also ask ourselves whether the
federal government has the constitutional right to implement Bill
C-55. Nothing that I have found either in constitutional or case
law puts the area of print media in federal jurisdiction. As well
the bill intrudes into provincial jurisdiction in the areas of
property and civil rights.
Added to this, the provisions of Bill C-55 contravene sections
2, 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It
violates the freedom of expression, freedom of the press and
freedom of association. It also violates charter security rights
under sections 7 and 8. Furthermore it contravenes the enjoyment
of property provisions found in the Canadian bill of rights.
All this evidence indicates that we are dealing with a very
poorly drafted piece of legislation which offends the very basic
values and laws which we as Canadians hold sacred.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the
hon. member. The time has expired. On questions and comments,
the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
1700
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my hon. colleague. He was
pursuing a very interesting train of thought.
I would like him to address the House on what he believes will
be the impact of Bill C-55 on the ability of Canadian culture to
continue to exist in a fruitful and productive way in this
country. That is what all of us in this House wish to have.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, in short, the government
should have more faith in Canadian culture. Our cultural
industries have what it takes to compete in an open and
unfettered market.
In the narrow sense one can fall into the trap of believing that
this piece of legislation will benefit the domestic periodical
industry. I question whether it will.
Our country's economic and cultural prosperity has been built on
foundations of free enterprise. Canadians have no reason to fear
competition. On every occasion that we have faced it we have
done well. Why is there a need to push the panic button now?
This bill is shortsighted.
In the long run our magazine industry can become the pride of
the world. Are some Canadian periodicals facing the threat of
extinction? The answer is probably yes for some of them if they
do not show innovation and results.
I have confidence that competition will bring out the best in
our industry and that this sector will grow to become a world
renowned first class industry without intervention.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, my question for my colleague relates to the fact that if
this legislation is found wanting as the previous legislation was
found wanting, and the member may correct me if I am mistaken,
but I understand that if the legislation is found in the
international arena to be lacking, if it is challenged and if
Canada loses, retaliatory measures may be sought under the
auspices of the international organization to go after another
Canadian industry. That potentially puts any other Canadian
industry at risk.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, it is a good question.
That is something members on the other side should be thinking
about. They are here protecting a small industry but they are
accusing us of not helping. That is not the issue.
There is a bigger issue is if measures are taken against other
industries what will they do then? My colleague is right. Under
NAFTA I am sure this bill will be challenged and probably be seen
to be wanting, so we will be paying the penalty.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have enjoyed the comments on Bill C-55.
I think the objective of members from both sides is in part the
same, that nobody in this House wants to see Canadian culture be
dissolved or diminished in any way. We want to see Canadian
culture thrive in the best way possible.
Unfortunately I think for a long time we have had a bit of an
inferiority complex with respect to Canadian culture.
In travelling to the United States what strikes me very clearly
in looking at the American cultural industry versus the Canadian
cultural industry is that the Canadian cultural industry can
compete and beat the American cultural industry in so many areas.
1705
Nobody in the House would agree that The Simpsons has
better educational value than some W5 programs or some CBC
documentaries or dramas that are superbly done and are very
educational and very well put together. They are far superior
than the vast majority of American cultural efforts in those
areas.
If there is one thing I hope we can take from the debate today
it is that Canadian companies can compete well and they need to
take a much more aggressive view compared to what they do south
of the border. Magazines, newspapers, television and especially
CBC radio do a superb job of competing south of the border. In
the U.S. sometimes they can pick up CBC radio. In comparing the
Canadian content of CBC radio versus American content it is like
night and day. Canadian content is far superior.
When the Minister of Canadian Heritage speaks to the bill, about
American companies coming to our country and diluting Canadian
magazines so the content withers away, that is simply not true.
Our assertion is that Canadian magazines can compete on their
own. What Canadian magazines need is not protection but
promotion, and not from the government. It should give the
magazines and companies the ability and the tools to compete as
any company rather than the situation now where we have a tax
burden, rules and regulations that restrict the ability of
Canadian companies, be they in the advertising industry or
somewhere else, to compete against our neighbours south of the
border.
The taxes and rules and regulations are the primary reasons why
companies cannot compete as successfully as they should with
their compatriots south of the border. I implore the ministers
on the other side who have responsibility in this area to come
together and work with their counterparts to lower the tax burden
and eliminate the rules and regulations that exist not only
north-south but east-west. That involves cabinet ministers
taking a leadership role with their provincial counterparts to
work together to try to remove these barriers to trade which is
restricted for so long the ability of Canadian companies to
function.
We oppose the bill on a number of levels, one being the issue of
freedom of speech. Although we are not enamoured in any way with
some big international group being able to hammer little Canada,
that is not going to happen. We want to ensure that Canadian
companies and magazines are going to be competing on a level
playing field.
This bill violates what is very dear to the hearts of everybody
and something that is a tenet of our country, the charter. I
would not say dear to our hearts but the charter exists and we
have to live with it. In the charter is the principle that is
very dear to Canadians, section 2(b) which says everyone has the
fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion, expression,
including the freedom of the press and other means of
communication. It would be nice if members in the House of
Commons had that same freedom under the charter, but that is a
subject for another day.
Bill C-55 violates that fundamental freedom and the Canadian
Association of Advertisers has spoken against this by saying that
it contravenes the ability of advertisers to have the freedom
under the charter to compete and engage in advertising across the
border. That is why since 1965, although this notion has
continued to be pursued by Canadian governments, it has gone
absolutely nowhere.
It violates the norms of international trade rules and
regulations and it has very little to do with being able to
protect Canadian culture.
1710
As I said before, since this has been happening since 1965, have
we seen Canadian culture go off the map? No. Canadian culture
is thriving and Canadian culture can do a lot more and be
expanded in a far greater fashion if instead of using government
money to promote it we enable individual companies to
self-promote.
One thing we can do without using Canadian money, which is
actually very interesting, is use our embassies and our foreign
services in other parts of the world to promote and provide
information to Canadian cultural organizations to disperse
Canadian culture in other countries, particularly to our brothers
south of the border. The people of the United States would
benefit greatly I think from knowing what happens in Canada.
Although our border is very porous, we are very close together
and they are our greatest neighbours, it is surprising how little
many Americans know about us and vice versa. More cultural
integration, more trade of information will actually improve the
bond that exists between us.
From time to time conflicts do exist, be it on fisheries,
whaling or on agricultural products and forestry, and they sour
our relationship with our American cousins, but there is still a
great deal we can improve on. We take pride in the fact that we
have so much trade with the Americans. Eighty per cent of our
exports go to the states and we are America's greatest partner.
But the fact remains that just scratches the surface. There is so
much more that Canadian companies can do south of the border
which would be of direct economic benefit to Canadians from coast
to coast.
When I was in the United States in March, what struck me was the
lack of knowledge on both sides of the border and also the
enormous economic opportunities for Canadians south of the
border. It is no mistake that last year 46,500 of our best and
brightest went to the United States to work. They did not pick
the bottom rung. The creme de la creme of Canadians, of our
youth, went down there. They went down for many reasons.
Americans recognize value for money and recognize the value of
Canadians and Canadian expertise.
My colleagues have spoken about the ability and the
responsibility the government has in enabling Canadians to stay
within our borders by providing tax relief, the elimination of
rules and regulations, the educational opportunities that
Canadians require here and the investment in research and
development required and necessary for us to be competitive.
Having said that, there is much that Canadians can do. Canadian
companies can compete and can beat American companies on so many
levels.
I encourage the Minister for International Trade to work with
his counterpart in foreign affairs and the Minister of Finance
and members from across party lines. Our critic for
international trade would be happy to provide his expert advice
to the government on what we can do to improve our economic
opportunities abroad.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member indicated how many bright Canadians have
gone down to the United States.
As he knows, recently it has been reported in Canada for I
believe the fifth year running that we are the number one country
in the world in which to live. I wonder if he has any
statistical information on how many Americans may have come up to
Canada in terms of their best and brightest.
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague for the information. C.D. Howe has done a recent study
on this issue and has come up with statistics. I cannot give him
the exact point right now, but if he would like I could find it
for him. The bottom line is that the imbalance is huge. The
American creme de la creme are simply not coming up to Canada.
The best and brightest of Canadians are going down south.
1715
The number one reason has been repeated time and time again.
Taxes are far too high. A working family of two in the United
States after taxes earns 44% more than a Canadian couple in the
same situation. When we speak to Canadian youth who have gone
down south they say they would much prefer to live in Canada.
They love Canada, but how can Canada compete when they are
earning 44% more in the United States? It is not only money.
They have opportunities to be the best they can become.
Speaking professionally from a medical point of view, the
ability to practise medicine and engage in other professional
opportunities in the United States is far greater because of
investment in research and development.
There are some enormous opportunities for Canada to do some very
innovative things. Perhaps there could be an extension on RRSPs
over and beyond what we have now. RRSP moneys could be obligated
to be invested into Canadian companies on Canadian shore,
resulting in Canadian companies having money to be able to work
and having capital to invest.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with great attention to my colleague's
speech. I thought he gave a great overview of the issue.
Earlier in the House we heard the minister of heritage refer to
why the bill needed to be introduced. Her interventionist
approach seems quite inappropriate in this area. Her arguments
are based on the assumption that Canadian industry cannot make it
on its own without government protection.
Could my colleague shed a bit of light on that aspect of the
bill?
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the question. It gets to the heart of the fundamental difference
of opinion between the Reform Party and the government. The
issue is how can Canadian culture be the best it can become.
The government believes that protection is the answer. We
believe in enabling these companies, magazines and cultural
entities to promote. We believe Canadian culture can compete on
its own two legs without government intervention and beat other
countries rather than exist in an environment where it has to
build barriers. Canadian culture should look beyond, embrace a
much larger population and show the best of what Canada has to
offer.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am happy to take part today in the debate on Bill C-55, but I am
disappointed in the government's approach to responding to the
World Trade Organization.
The WTO has asked Canada to redo its law to comply with the
ruling made in March and June 1997 against Canada regarding
punitive tariffs and tax measures against split run additions.
Canada was clearly in contravention of the rules that we signed
at this international body. What bothers me most is that Canada
has been one of the main proponents at the World Trade
Organization and the international body before it, the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trades, to establish clear rules of
conduct for business.
Canada needs this very badly. Our country has large exports.
Forty per cent of our gross domestic product is derived from our
exports. That is probably more than any other country in the
world. More in fact than the United States whose GDP derived
from exports is something like 10%.
Canada clearly needs rules, a rule based regime. Canada
recognized this a long time ago. Our government introduced
legislation back in 1946, 1947 and 1948 and was the main push
behind getting the GATT established, recognizing that it would
serve Canada's interests.
Canada has held an inordinate amount of sway in these
international talks.
1720
I was with the Minister for International Trade in Geneva last
spring at the ministerial conference of the World Trade
Organization. Canada is pushing for more liberalized trade in
investment. We are pushing for more rules in areas like services
and trying to bring agriculture under the trade rules which have
hurt the industry through trade wars and massive subsidies in the
past.
Yet, at the very time when we are going down that road with the
trade minister and the government, we have the heritage minister
seeming to completely contradict the trade minister by not
complying with the World Trade Organization ruling and trying to
circumvent the World Trade Organization ruling in June of this
year by bringing in Bill C-55. The United States has already
said that if the bill becomes law it will ask the World Trade
Organization to repeal it.
What would happen if that were to happen? I believe it will
happen because it is in contravention of the ruling. Rather than
complying and being gracious about defeat in this area, the
minister of heritage has sort of stuck her finger in the eye of
the international dispute body, the World Trade Organization.
Effectively she has said that we will not comply; to heck with
those guys, we will go our own way.
What would happen if the United States took us to the World
Trade Organization because of this legislation? What would
happen if the World Trade Organization ruled against us for a
second time? Canada does not have to comply because those are
the rules of the World Trade Organization, but it certainly
should because our international reputation would be tarnished.
However we do not have to. We can go on with our silly policy if
we want, but any country that takes us to court and gets a ruling
in its favour has the right to retaliate. Those are the rules of
the GATT. A country has the right to retaliate in kind.
What form could that retaliation take? It could take the form
of retaliation in the cultural sector, the agricultural sector,
the forestry sector, and even in areas that are not distinctly
related to this dispute.
Let us assume that they took retaliation in the area of culture.
What does Canada have to lose? We have a very big amount to
lose. We have a lot of Canadian entertainers in the cultural
sector finding employment in the United States. It is a very big
market with some 260 million people. Shania Twain and other
entertainers go to Nashville and Hollywood. They do not want
their access denied. However, if the ruling went against Canada,
and I believe it will, the United States could choose to follow
that route. I think we are cutting off our nose to spite our
face.
What possible good can come out of this? We have the matter of
Canadian advertisers who want to advertise in split-run
magazines. It seems to me that they would know what is best for
their business. It removes a choice from Canadian advertisers.
Do we really need a magazine that is so mediocre that it cannot
stand up to competition without support or protection? I think
not.
Let us look at some of the magazines that claim they need
protection. What would happen to those magazines if the United
States said it would not let Americans advertise in Canadian
magazines if we did not advertiser in theirs? We can flip
through the October 26 edition of Maclean's, one of the
magazines we are talking about in this whole issue. What is the
ad on the first page? Jaguar. It goes on. Three-quarters of the
ads in Maclean's magazine come from outside Canada. Is
that the message we want to send around the world, that we are
not open to business in Canada?
Could it function without ads from Volvo, Subaru, Disney World,
IBM, Air France, Oldsmobile and Kodak? I do not know that it
could.
1725
We are using foreign money to support our magazines right now.
On the other side of the equation we are saying that we cannot
let Canadians advertise in magazines such as Sports
Illustrated because it does not have enough Canadian content.
The ruling has gone against us once and it will go against us
again. Then what will the government do? The United States has
the right to retaliate. This time I think it just might get
tough. We certainly do not want to go down the road of possibly
risking closure of the United States market to our entertainers.
Let us examine the issue of whether the industry needs
protection. My colleagues have already made some interesting
points by suggesting that it probably does not. I would agree
that it probably does not, but the industry certainly warrants
promotion.
Canadian trade delegations travel all the time. The Prime
Minister is very proud of the January junkets he takes to promote
Canadian goods. Incidentally, it seems that he only goes to
countries in January that have a temperature of about 30°
Celsius. Be that as it may, he is out there promoting Canadian
goods and services. The trade minister is out there all the
time. Canadian businesses are too.
Why can they not promote Canadian culture? Why can they not
promote Canadian entertainers, our magazines, our book industry
and our publishing industry? They should be very much a part of
that promotion in the same way they promote Canadian agriculture,
Canadian forest industries or whatever.
The opposite to that is the approach the heritage minister seems
to take, one of protection. I thought the protectionist walls
had been broken down a long time ago. We have seen protectionist
walls in the past. Sir John A. Macdonald put up high tariff
walls after Confederation and essentially destroyed Atlantic
Canada's ability to trade with the New England States. As a
result it became a welfare state of Canada, and the government
wants to go down that road again.
We have an $800 billion industry in Canada. That is the GDP of
our country. Protection does not enter into very many of those
industries. I can think of only a couple like the supply
management sector of agriculture, an industry that basically has
no exports. It basically has to look at the Canadian market all
by itself. There are other sectors of Canadian industry that do
not have competition. Largely they are industries like the power
industry. Where that happens, public utilities boards are put in
to look after the public interest because no competition can
occur.
Why should we be afraid of competition? We are out in the world
every day exporting product. The two way trade between Canada
and the United States is worth over $1.4 billion a day. They are
saying that we cannot compete. All we need is a small piece of
the American pie, and I think we are doing very well. Many
Canadian artists have already discovered that. That is why
Shania Twain travels to Nashville. That is why Terri Clark from
Medicine Hat is in Nashville. They are looking at that big
market. They are not only serving Canadians. They are out there
looking at a much bigger world.
Canadians will not be intimidated. They will look outward. They
will look at the global economy. They have enough confidence to
take that on, but we have to get things right at home. We have
to get the fundamentals right.
When the foreign affairs and international trade standing
committee did a study on why small and medium size businesses
were not exporting as we believed they should, the message was
strong and clear. They said the government had far too much
regulation and that the cost of doing business in Canada was too
high.
A representative of one small company with under 100 employees
came before our committee and said that he had to move his
operation to Illinois. He said that he could do better business,
that he could trade more effectively back into Canada with his
company in Illinois than he could when he was located in Ontario
because of interprovincial trade barriers.
Small companies are telling us that is the problem. I suggest
that many of these companies such as Maclean's are not
small companies at all.
1730
They are relying right now on the international marketplace.
They are relying on international investors and companies to
advertise in their magazines. I think they can make it. Canadian
cultural businesses, small or large, have to face the reality
that there is a big world out there. They have to go after a
portion of that market. They can do it. We have to get past this
myth that subsidies and barriers are a great thing in Canada.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I apologize to the House for taking up its time. In the normal
course of events we have these discussions in the respective
lobbies, government and opposition. I wonder if this speaker
needed approximately five more minutes to finish his
intervention, without a period of question and comment, then we
would seek the consent of the House to defer the amendment of the
Reform member to be voted on at the expiration of Government
Orders on Tuesday, October 27.
If someone else wants to speak, I understand they will refuse
that consent. I apologize for taking the House's time on this
negotiation on the floor of the House. I have tried to have some
discussions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
* * *
[Translation]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. The
member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve advised me in writing that he
was unable to introduce his motion during the hour provided for
consideration of Private Members' Business on Friday, October
23, 1998.
As it was not possible to change positions on the list of
priorities, I ask the clerk to drop this motion to the bottom of
the list. The hour provided for consideration of Private
Members' Business will, therefore, be suspended and the House
will continue to examine the matters before it at that time.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences),
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-251 to amend the Criminal
Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I
compliment the hon. member for Mississauga East for bringing this
act forward. Most of the citizens in my riding would
overwhelming support this bill which enhances penalties for
sexual offences and murders.
I am not the critic for justice. I am not even a lawyer. Our
very able critic for justice, the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, is a former crown prosecutor. He
has outlined the benefits of this bill and endorses it
completely. I will follow his recommendation from a professional
point of view.
From of a personal point of view I want to add my support. As I
said, I am not a justice critic but I am a Canadian. I feel, as
I am sure the member who put forth the bill feels, so often
criminals get the benefit of the doubt. Some of our structures
for offences and imprisonment are not in tune with what the
Canadian people think or want.
As a member of parliament I serve an area that has two correction
facilities in it, a new one for women in Truro, Nova Scotia built
in 1993, and the one in Springhill which is multilevel
correctional institute.
1735
Correctional Service Canada is probably one of the biggest
employers in my riding. It plays a huge role in my riding and
everyone is touched by Correctional Service Canada and the impact
it has. It works with many of our other institutions like the
community college in Springhill. It provides all kinds of
information to us and the communities provide information back.
It is very much a community effort. I believe in any community
that has a correctional institution there must be a connection
between the community and the institution to be successful.
This is why I recently proposed that the correctional training
centre proposed by the solicitor general be established in the
community of Springhill adjacent to the major prison there. Also
it would tie in nicely with the expertise of the people. It
would tie in nicely with the facilities. We have the community
college in Springhill which would be more than glad to establish
a curriculum that would help train correctional officers for
correctional facilities all over Canada.
The Springhill institution is now the reception centre for all
prisoners in Atlantic Canada. When a prisoner comes into the
system the first place they go is Springhill. Springhill
determines whether they should go to a maximum, medium or minimum
security facility and then they are transferred from there. Every
prisoner comes to Springhill, so it is an ideal spot for this
correctional training centre as proposed by the solicitor
general.
It will obviously save a lot of taxpayer dollars if it is
established in Springhill just because the facilities are there,
the training is there, the people are there and the expertise is
there. I certainly endorse the solicitor general's proposal for
a new training centre. I strongly recommend that it go to the
Springhill community.
There is a third area where I run into justice issues even
though I am not the justice critic. It is just as a member of
parliament. One of the most frustrating and confusing issues
that I have run into is the murder of James Mills. This murder
took place on July 24, 1991.
I was involved with it as a member of parliament at that time.
But the family has been dragged through a terrible ordeal for
seven years, seven years of pain and frustration because there
has never been justice for this murder. There has never been
anyone held accountable for it. The justice department has never
provided any information to satisfy the Mills family as to why
its son was murdered while in a correctional facility in Renous,
New Brunswick. He was in the care, custody and control of
Correctional Service Canada. He was murdered and there has never
been any penalty. There has never been a charged laid in this
case. In this case I am certainly involved with justice issues.
James Mills was murdered in custody on July 24, 1991. This
certainly indicates a breakdown in the system between
Correctional Service Canada and the RCMP through the
investigation and the evolution of the whole case. It has been
closed several times and swept under the carpet. We have been
able to drag it out several times. Time after time we have met
with Correctional Service Canada people. We have met with the
RCMP at all levels, senior, junior, everywhere. We have met with
the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada. We have met with
the minister over and over again and still we are not one step
closer that we know of to a resolution to this problem.
The Mills family has never had closure. It has never been able
to say somebody is being held accountable for the murder.
We have probably been through a half dozen solicitors general
through this period of time since this murder and there still has
not been a resolution.
The current solicitor general has certainly been the subject of
a lot of attention lately because he talked about some things on
an airplane he should not have talked about. The solicitor general
has really been helpful in this
case to try to secure a resolution to the James Mills case. To
me he has gone above and beyond the call of duty because he has
compassion for James Mills' family. I appreciate what he has
done, although we still are not one step closer to closure.
I ask the solicitor general to continue the pressure to try to
get this brought to justice and to ensure that the RCMP complete
the investigation and the file is turned over the attorney
general of New Brunswick. If the attorney general deems charges
should be laid I hope he will lay them forthwith. If not, I hope
and I demand that the Government of Canada apologize to the Mills
family.
1740
The first choice is that charges be laid, justice be done and
penalties be given to the appropriate people.
This brings us back to Bill C-251 which is why we are here. Bill
C-251 makes imminent sense to me and, as I said, it makes
imminent sense to other people who support me in my riding. It
basically says that in the case of sexual offences they be
treated differently than other offences.
It says that if there are other offences that occur at the same
time that sexual offences occur, the sexual offence penalty be
paid completely, that the sentence be served completely and not
be done concurrently so that the person who commits a sexual
offence cannot get off earlier because of concurrent sentences.
I think it makes imminent sense and I certainly support that.
The second part of the bill says the same thing for murderers.
In a case like James Mills, perhaps the person who murdered James
Mills was in prison already for another murder. If he is
convicted under present rules, there is no deterrent to stop that
person from committing another murder, another murder, another
murder.
Under this bill, if the person is brought to justice, if he does
pay the penalty, if he is convicted, then it will be consecutive
and not concurrent with the time he is already serving.
A prisoner in Renous murdered another prisoner. If he is
convicted under the prison rules, he serves no more time. There
is no deterrent. There is no reason for him not to do it. Under
Bill C-251, the sentences will be consecutive and it will be a
deterrent to that person from committing further crimes.
This bill emphasizes how completely out of touch with the
Canadian people the present government is. The people in my
riding want tougher sentences, not weaker sentences. They want
criminals who commit violent crimes of a sexual nature or a
homicide to stay in prison for their sentences. They do not want
concurrent sentences. They want consecutive sentences and that
is what this bill does. I certainly support it. My constituents
support it totally, I am sure.
It seems the present policy now is for prisoners to be allowed
out of prison at the earliest possible convenience to them, at
the earliest possible time.
I do not disagree with that on non-violent offences if the
prisoners indicate some rehabilitation, some desire to do better,
some desire to improve their lives and play a role in our
communities.
For violent offences I do not believe there should be
exceptions. I do not believe there should be concurrent
sentences. They should be consecutive sentences. I endorse this
bill 100%.
The government should be focusing on just what this bill does,
not things like registering shotguns and rifles. This makes no
sense at all for people in my riding in northern Nova Scotia.
What people want is for people who commit crimes of a violent
nature to serve their time.
We want to focus on that part of justice. We do not want to
focus on registration of shotguns and rifles in my riding. I
want to add my support to Bill C-251 and I want to compliment the
member for Mississauga East for bringing it forth.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to this bill in support of my colleague, the
member for Mississauga East. She has worked very hard for quite
some time to ensure that her proposal does not fall by the
wayside.
I begin by quoting from one of her speeches on a similar bill in
a previous parliament: “I have sadly been visited by too many
victims of crime who have now come to realize that they also are
victims of parliament. Some had lost children. Some had lost
parents. Some had lost spouses but all had lost faith in the
courts, lost faith in the parole boards and, most of all, lost
faith in parliament”. I believe that parliament can make a
difference. To lose faith in parliament would, I think, be
disappointing to say the least. All of us in the House believe
that parliament can make a difference or else we would not be
here.
My colleague has worked on her bill for two parliaments. Surely
now is the time to re-establish her faith in parliament. Now is
the time to look at this bill and to give it the respect and
study it deserves.
1745
My riding of Oak Ridges is evolving. From being a fairly rural
and small-town atmosphere where everyone knew everyone else, it
has grown to be an urban centre. The problems associated with
urban crime and justice are now raising their ugly head.
The chief of police in my area has informed me that the number
of first and second degree murders is increasing, as is the
number of sexual assaults. These are horrific crimes, domestic
homicide involving husbands strangling wives, and beatings and
stabbings. I will give some examples.
On September 9, 1995 there was a domestic homicide. A husband
strangled his wife. He pleaded not guilty. Upon conviction of
manslaughter he served five years in jail.
On December 17, 1995 in my riding there was a domestic homicide.
A son-in-law beat his father-in-law to death and attempted to
murder another in-law in the same manner. He pleaded not guilty.
Upon conviction of second degree murder, he was sentenced to 16
years in jail.
On January 23, 1997 there was a domestic homicide. A young
offender stabbed his mother to death. He pleaded guilty and upon
conviction of manslaughter was sentenced to six months of secured
custody and four months of open custody.
Another problem in my riding is home invasions where people are
stalked then attacked in their own homes. There was even a case
of two offenders who invaded a home to rob the owners and then
slashed the victim who bled to death. That occurred on February
18, 1997. They pleaded guilty. Upon conviction of manslaughter,
the young offender was sentenced as an adult to six and a half
years in jail; the adult offender was sentenced to seven and a
half years in jail.
I want to make the point that one of the bill's objectives is to
reduce our inhumanity to the families of victims. Who among us
does not remember the horror suffered by the victims of Clifford
Olson and their families, the victims of Paul Bernardo and their
families, the victims of Denis Lortie and their families.
Half of all those convicted of second degree murder in this
country and who are sentenced to life are released after less
than 12 years. Denis Lortie machine gunned three people to death
and was released after only serving 11 years.
I cannot even imagine what those families have gone through.
They deserve our compassion and they deserve truth in sentencing.
There should be no discounts in sentencing.
Convicted repeat offenders of these crimes should not serve
penalties all at the same time and then be released. If the
person has done the crime, he or she should do the time. That
means serving the full sentence for each penalty, a full sentence
for each specific crime.
I have no difficulty in supporting cumulative sentencing for
convicted serial rapists and serial killers. I believe in stiff
sentences and I believe in serving all the time on the sentence
and not serving it all at the same time. If a person is given
three sentences, add them up and serve the cumulative time.
I believe this is a way to restore the public's faith in the
court system, faith in sentencing, and faith in parliament. We
should be proud to send the justice system a clear message. We
should be clear and concise. Canadians want criminals treated in
a clear way.
According to Sentencing in Canada: “Previous research suggests
that, for some offences at least, unwarranted variation in
sentencing trends is a reality in Canada. Researchers found for
example that the same set of case facts generated sentences that
ranged in severity from a suspended sentence to 13 years in
prison”. This is not right. We should provide the justice
system with clear and unequivocal direction.
A sentence should apply for each specific crime and for each
victim. Full time should be served for each sentence.
By supporting this bill, we will establish faith in parliament
for all Canadians, and certainly for my colleague for Mississauga
East.
1750
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to address the
contents of Bill C-251.
The bill calls for the imposition of consecutive sentences where
a person commits sexual assault and another offence arising out
of the same event or where the person is already serving another
sentence at the time.
Also, the bill provides that a person sentenced to life
imprisonment for first or second degree murder is not eligible
for parole until that person has served in addition to the
portion of the sentence that the person must serve for murder,
one-third or a maximum of seven years of any other sentence
imposed on the person in respect of an offence arising out of the
same events, or a sentence that the person is already serving.
The mandatory portion of each life sentence imposed on a person
convicted of a second murder must be served consecutively before
that person is eligible for parole.
My constituents and I cannot believe that there is anyone in the
House who could disagree with the spirit and intention of the
bill. In fact one of my motions in the House as a new member of
parliament was along the same lines as Bill C-251. My Motion
M-23 calls for the House to provide that in cases where an
accused person is convicted of multiple criminal offences, that
person should receive consecutive sentences. My motion was even
broader than the scope of Bill C-251.
I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Mississauga
East for bringing her bill forward. This bill would bring some
measure of truth to sentencing.
We on this side of the House have been calling for truth in
sentencing for many years. Without truth in sentencing we lose
confidence in our criminal justice system.
Last summer we heard the justice minister admit in the House
that Canadians have no confidence in our criminal justice system.
That is what she said. We on this side of the House have been
saying that for many years because we listen to what Canadians
say to us.
Bernardo brutally killed two people. We feel that he should
serve two sentences consecutively. Clifford Olson committed
multiple murders. We feel that he should serve multiple
consecutive sentences. Justice must be done and seen to be done.
That is what we need for Canadians to have their faith in our
criminal justice system restored.
What has the Liberal justice minister been doing to restore
faith in our criminal justice system? Absolutely nothing. Where
are the Young Offenders Act changes? It has been months since
the minister last spoke about that.
Today with the passage of this bill, criminals would know that
when they commit crimes they will serve the time.
We must hold criminals accountable and punish them for all the
crimes they commit. That is what the bill proposes.
In Surrey, B.C. where I come from we have to help our RCMP
detachment. The Liberals are allowing their funding to dry up.
In my riding the RCMP is rationing the gasoline used in the
police cruisers. We cannot believe this. It is like living under
the War Measures Act. During times of war we ration gasoline.
Former Prime Minister Trudeau was the last Liberal to invoke the
War Measures Act, but he declared it publicly. Our current Prime
Minister is doing such a bad job running our country that we are
living under War Measures Act rules, except the Prime Minister is
not admitting it.
The solicitor general tells us that the RCMP can give us the
same service today as it did 125 years ago. That is what he said
in question period this week. The RCMP has not been rationing
gas for 125 years.
Never in 125 years has our RCMP been unable to conduct an
investigation because of the lack of personnel and funding.
1755
We can help by preventing the RCMP from having to deal with
repeat criminals or their customers. We can ensure that multiple
crimes receive multiple consecutive sentences. We have no
apology for keeping repeat criminals off the streets. We need
tough sentencing. We do not need five star Liberal jails.
The Liberals should be concerned about the criminal committing
further crimes. Instead the government is concentrating on
aspects of how early can a person convicted of a crime be
released. Again the Liberals are not getting tough on crime.
This government should be ashamed.
It was this government that two weeks ago denied our law
enforcement agencies the full use of DNA identification
technology. Our police were pleading for the use of technology,
but the Liberals said no. That is why the bogus refugees on our
streets are selling drugs to our children today.
The hon. member for Mississauga East is concerned about the
victims of crime. The bill she has introduced provides for
consecutive sentencing. We should all support this bill. We
should be looking through the lens of the issues and not through
the lens of political stripes. We should support any member of
the House when he or she is doing the right thing. On this side
of the House we are allowed to do that and we expect the same
courtesy from the government side as well.
We are supporting Bill C-251 submitted by a Liberal member of
parliament because this is the right thing to do. This bill will
contribute to bringing safety back to our streets. It will
restore a measure of public safety. It will remove criminals
from our streets for longer periods of time and it will protect
innocent citizens. It will protect the most vulnerable members
of our society, women, children and seniors. Yet the Liberals
are not taking concrete measures to protect Canadians, make our
homes and streets safe and reduce crime through deterrence
measures.
The people of Surrey Central want our federal government to
exercise a leadership role in terms of getting tough on crime, so
we will support this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-251,
introduced by our colleague from Mississauga East, is the result
of a lot of hard work on her part to prove the need to amend the
Criminal Code.
She proved, through statistics and studies, that people feel let
down by parliament's unwillingness to rectify this rather
serious flaw. Our colleague had three goals in moving this bill,
the first one being to introduce a human element.
Through he work, she had the opportunity to meet the families of
victims of the most abominable crimes you can imagine. They
talked about the moral anguish suffered by family members and
friends alike. This shows the law is flawed. Some of these crimes
are so horrible that they have had a tremendous impact on the
victims' families. Of course, the victims are dead now, but their
families are still suffering.
I believe this human point of view is extremely important and
not negligible. Often these people feel that the members of
their families who were victims of such horrendous crimes have
been forgotten. When a sentence is handed down, it is a
concurrent sentence. This means that if a criminal is sentenced
to life in prison, it does not go any further; of course we know
that legally they can ask for parole. After 15 years, they have
the opportunity to recover their freedom.
1800
Of course, this is horrible for the victims' families.
Statistics, and our colleague's study, show that in seven out of
ten cases the victims fell prey to criminals who had already
served prison terms for such horrible crimes as murder, and had
reoffended upon being released after 15 years. Very often the
victims were children or women.
When we hear such figures, seven out of ten victims due to the
fact that these criminals reoffended, we have every right to be
concerned and say that the law should be amended.
We cannot afford to let people loose when we know that they are
very likely to commit the same kind of crimes.
I believe the least we can do is amend the law so that in the
case of such horrible crimes and when there are several victims,
we do not take any chances and do not release them. These crimes
are often beyond our imagination.
The member for Mississauga East is right to believe that the
time has come for parliament and members of this House to take a
stand on this issue. We have nothing to lose, but everything to
gain, in making sure that in the future the kind of crimes we
have seen in recent years do not happen again. There are people
who were released who should never have been set free.
There is not much more to be said on this issue. Our colleague
did her homework. Many people have voiced their opinion on this
matter. It is obvious that an amendment was needed and at long
last we will have the opportunity to rectify this serious flaw.
[English]
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to rise today in this House to support private member's
Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act. This bill was brought forward with
great determination by the member for Mississauga East.
This bill would bring justice to sentencing practices in Canada
and would end volume discounts for rapists and murderers. By
enacting consecutive sentencing for serial murderers and rapists
this bill will give victims and families faith in parliament and
the ability to sleep peacefully at night.
The Canadian public understands that the objectives of this bill
are to reduce our inhumanity to the families of victims, to
restore some truth in sentencing and to stop gambling away lives
on the chance that a multiple murderer or serial predator will
not attack again.
Disparity in sentencing in this country provides a strong
argument for change. Consider this: half of those convicted of
second degree murder who are sentenced to life are released after
less than 12 years. Denis Lortie, who gunned down three people
in the Quebec National Assembly, was released after only 11
years. That is about 3.5 years for each person he murdered.
1805
Life imprisonment in Canada does not mean life. Canadians are
misled to believe that once a murderer goes to jail he stays
there. That is not always the case and it never was.
Researchers say that the same set of case facts, for some
offences at least, generated sentences that ranged from a
suspended sentence to 13 years in prison. There is no
consistency from one end of the country to the other. This is
very disturbing.
A shocking discovery is found in a study entitled “Sentencing
in Canada: Recent Statistical Trends” written by two
well-respected experts in this field, Julian Roberts of the
University of Ottawa and Andy Birkenmayer of Statistics Canada.
The report states:
One of the most basic failings of the current sentencing system
in Canada is that there is no method for anyone—to know in a
systematic, up-to-date, and accessible manner, on a continuing
basis, what kinds of sentences are being handed down.
With no consistency and no proper, well-known precedence on
sentencing, how can Canadians have confidence in their legal
system? Change begins with this bill.
The tragic irony is that we have no problem invoking consecutive
penalties for offences like parking tickets or speeding tickets.
As the member for Mississauga East has explained many times, if
someone parks illegally 10 times they pay 10 tickets. There is
no volume discount. If someone gets three speeding tickets they
are going to pay three fines.
This bill seeks the same principle for serious and vicious
crimes. One only has to look at the Clifford Olson case to be
compelled to vote for Bill C-251. At Olson's disgusting 745
hearing last summer he read out a letter from his lawyer advising
him to admit to all of his murders at once. In this way Olson
could take full advantage of the concurrent sentencing law.
We should not accept the fact that Olson and other predators can
be given concurrent sentences and that our justice system
continues to offer bulk rates for brutality.
It has been argued in this House that concurrent sentences
counter any need to reduce sentencing dispositions for individual
offences in order to achieve an overall and just result. It is
never just to reduce a sentence for rape or murder just because
the victim was not the only victim of the predator involved.
It is worse yet for the courts to mask the fact that they do
discount sentences time and time again through concurrent
sentencing. The courts should impose consecutive sentences when
the crimes are as devastating as murder and sexual assault.
Is it not more logical and compassionate to keep those predators
who have killed or sexually assaulted multiple victims securely
away from future victims? If we need more space in prisons, then
creative forms of punishment and rehabilitation should be
introduced for those guilty of property or commercial offences.
Here is a compelling point. It is often said that the National
Parole Board is an independent decision maker dedicated to public
safety. However, in the real world an average paroled criminal
murders one person a month. How can members of this House live
with that statistic? How can we not care about victims who have
every reason to fear the release of a predator and who can never
escape the endless parole process that threatens to unleash the
savagery of their assailants?
1810
Consecutive sentences would help the parole board to distinguish
the higher risk associated with rapists and murderers convicted
of multiple offences from individuals who may be guilty of a
single crime from a single incident.
Currently the lives of individual victims have been erased from
the sentencing equation. It shows a justice system that cheapens
life, where the courts have little regard for the pain, suffering
and death of the second, third or eleventh victim. I find this
unacceptable. Constituents in my riding find this unacceptable.
Members on both sides of this House find it unacceptable as well.
I would like to believe that we live in a country where
government would do everything in its power to protect the
victims of predators like Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo and Denis
Lortie. Bill C-251 will do just that. The voice of Canadians
who want to see important changes to the Criminal Code is growing
and growing. We can all relate to the public's need to feel
safe. However, it is time to do more than just relate. It is
time to enact change to protect the peace of mind of every
Canadian in this country.
I thank the member for Mississauga East for bringing these
reasonable and required changes to light and for the strength and
hard work she has shown in pushing this issue in the House. Our
justice system demands urgent changes. I fully support Bill
C-251 and I strongly encourage all members of the House to do the
same.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-251. I give my
encouragement, thanks and admiration to the member for
Mississauga East who has worked so hard to bring this bill to the
forefront. If we could clap today I am sure we would because she
has truly done a tremendous job on something that is going to
bring enormous justice to the Canadian people. It will improve
our justice system and make our streets safer.
The member is addressing an issue that goes to the worst, most
predatorial of all individuals, the violent offender, the
murderer, the rapist. The member is introducing a bill that
allows for consecutive sentencing, not concurrent sentencing, for
individuals who have proven to be a danger to society, who have
proven to have violated the fundamental rights of another
individual by committing the most atrocious violations through
murder or rape.
The Canadian public does not find it acceptable that somebody
who commits multiple rapes or murders can only receive one
sentence or sentences which run concurrently. It is absolutely
unbelievable that only 13% of child molesters, who are often
multiple repeat offenders, and 30% of individuals who commit
sexual assaults receive a sentence of two years or more. Bear in
mind that individuals who receive any sentence can receive parole
after serving only one-sixth of their sentence. They can be out
on the street after serving only a few months for committing a
violation against an individual. The innocent individual will
have to live with the violation for the rest of their life. Bill
C-251 addresses the root of this problem and provides a
constructive outlet for keeping the streets of our country safe.
I would caution the government to make sure that this bill does
not languish in committee. All too often private members' bills
go to committee and the government blocks them. It prevents
those bills from ever reaching third reading and becoming law.
1815
It would be an absolute travesty if this were to happen to Bill
C-251. It would be an enormous problem and would do a huge
injustice to the hard work by one member of parliament, the
member for Mississauga East. She has done so much work for 166
members in the House to arrive at this level of support for the
bill. For 166 members to support the bill and for the bill to go
to the committee to sit there and languish would be a huge
problem. We will be watching the government and government
leaders on the other side very carefully to make sure this never
happens.
This issue also illustrates a larger problem with respect to
Private Members' Business. I know that the House leader, the
government whip and all other members opposite who have the power
to change it are very interested in constructive solutions to
making sure that Private Members' Business is a more lively part
of the House.
Private Members' Business is one of the few opportunities for
members of parliament to exercise ideas in the House. If the
government continues to prevent it from being a useful tool it
would violate the very basics of democracy. It would violate the
ability of MPs to represent their constituents. It would violate
the ability of the Canadian public to be represented in the
House.
The government House leader was very vocal and provided many
constructive suggestions when he was in opposition. He published
a wonderful document along with Mr. Dingwall and a number of
other people in 1992 which provided incredibly constructive
suggestions on how to improve Private Members' Business.
I know the government House Leader is listening intently to me.
I would encourage him to take the words he penned with his own
hand in the wonderful document to reform Private Members'
Business and make the House more democratic and more responsive
to the needs of the backbenchers and the public. I encourage him
to pull out that wonderful document, come to the House within the
next two months and institute it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1835
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the second reading and reference of Bill C-251.
As it is the practice, the division will be taken row by row
starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour
of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover.
Then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of
the House will be called. Those opposed to the motion will be
called in the same order.
1840
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Baker
| Bélanger
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Boudria
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casey
| Casson
| Clouthier
| Cullen
|
Dhaliwal
| Dromisky
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Eggleton
| Fournier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Goodale
| Grewal
| Guarnieri
|
Hanger
| Harb
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Longfield
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McGuire
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Peric
| Perron
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Richardson
| Schmidt
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Wilfert – 81
|
NAYS
Members
DeVillers
| Mancini
| Robinson – 3
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bevilacqua
| Caccia
| Cardin
|
Catterall
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Fontana
|
Gagliano
| Gauthier
| Guay
| Ianno
|
Laurin
| Lincoln
| Rocheleau
| St - Hilaire
|
Turp
| Valeri
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to question the government's ability and
ingenuity on the post-TAGS adjustment program, the one that was
recently announced.
This may sound different but I have to give credit to the
government for at least having some form of initiative in a
post-TAGS adjustment program when all the indications out there
were that it would not do anything at all.
The unfortunate part is that the new program falls extremely
short of assisting those people who have been seriously affected
by the downturn of the fishery as well as DFO government
policies. There is no question at all that when the new TAGS
adjustment program was announced, thousands and thousands of the
fishermen and plant workers on the east coast of Atlantic Canada
and in Quebec were shut out of the new system.
Basically what they have done is apply one set of fishing groups
against another. During committee consideration in early May
and June I begged the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to
announce the program while the House was in session so that we
could debate the issue here and not through the media.
He had said at that time that he would take it under
consideration but could not offer any guarantees. Unfortunately
that wish went by the boards, and they announced the program in
Newfoundland which unfortunately turned into a bit of a shouting
match between displaced fishers and representatives of the
government who were there to announce the program.
1845
The real essence of this entire equation is that fishermen and
plant workers do not want the damn TAGS. They do not want it.
They just want to work.
A classic example is that today I announced in a statement in
the House that the town of Canso which was a viable fishing
community with over 400 years of self-sufficiency will now
announce at the beginning of January that it will have to claim
civic bankruptcy because of the direct policies of DFO.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of fishermen and plant
workers throughout the Atlantic coast and Quebec were shut out of
any adjustment program. Another aspect to the adjustment program
is the licence buyback. It falls extremely far short and is
absolutely criminal of what the government has done to these
people who invested their entire lives in historical attachment
to the fishery to get crumbs from this federal government.
In conclusion we do not have an agreement with the United States
on Pacific salmon because the minister himself said “the United
States is a very powerful nation and we have to tread carefully
in negotiations with them”.
I have on my desk the fact that the very mighty and powerful
nation of the Faroe Islands has convinced Canada that we have to
open up the Flemish Cap which is just outside the 200 mile limit.
We have to give it additional access to shrimp. This shrimp
allocation should have gone to those Canadians in Canso and in
Mulgrave. Unfortunately now hundreds of people will be losing
their jobs because we capitulated to that great powerful nation,
the Faroe Islands.
It is absolutely scandalous that thousands of Canadians in this
country can be so seriously let down by this government.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic
groundfish strategy or TAGS was designed to ensure that
individuals who had lost their livelihood and source of income
could meet their basic human needs. On this score TAGS has been
successful. Over 40,000 clients were provided with income
support in a timely manner. The program has also been successful
in helping some 15,000 fisher workers adjust out of the industry.
We realize that it will be a long time, if ever, before these
fish stocks are returned. We realize that what fishers and their
communities need are tools and programs to assist them to build
new lives outside the fishery. Therefore on June 19, 1998 we
announced an additional $730 million for a program called the
fishery restructuring and adjustment measures. These measures
include a final cash payment, licence retirement, early
retirement benefits, mobility assistance, employment programming
and wage subsidies.
To date we have approved in addition 145 term job creation
projects in Newfoundland which will put 1,645 Canadians back to
work. In Nova Scotia we have already approved six projects
putting 78 Canadians back to work.
In closing I wish to assure the hon. member that the Government
of Canada is not abandoning its responsibility for the people on
the east coast. On the contrary this government is providing
millions of dollars in funding to the east coast and Quebec to
help these Canadians and communities adjust to the changing
economy.
It is for this reason that the government remains committed to
ensuring that all Canadians, including fishers and plant workers,
can plan for their future.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)