CONTENTS
Monday, September 25, 1995
Bill C-311. Motion for second reading 14781
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 14787
Bill C-103. Motion for second reading 14789
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 14791
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 14805
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14807
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 14808
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 14808
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14809
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14809
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14810
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14810
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14810
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14810
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14811
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14811
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14811
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14811
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14811
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 14811
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14812
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 14812
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14812
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14812
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14813
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14813
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14813
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14813
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14814
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14815
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14815
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14815
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 14816
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14816
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14817
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14817
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14817
Motion for concurrence in 87th report 14819
(Motion agreed to.) 14819
(Question No. 40 transferred for debate) 14819
Bill C-103. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 14820
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 14823
Division on motion deferred. 14825
Bill C-93. Motion for second reading. 14825
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 14827
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 14838
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14838
Bill C-45. Consideration resumed of report stage 14842
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 34;Nays, 156 14842
Motion No. 7 agreed to on division: Yeas, 156;Nays, 34 14843
(Motion No. 10 agreed to.) 14844
Motion No. 16 negatived on division: Yeas, 37;Nays, 153 14844
Motion for concurrence and second reading 14845
(Bill concurred in and read the second time.) 14846
Bill C-90. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 14846
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 126; Nays, 64 14846
(Bill read the second time and referred to acommittee.) 14847
Bill C-94. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading and
of amendment 14847
Bill C-103. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 14847
(Bill read the second time and referred to acommittee.) 14847
14781
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, September 25, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal, Lib.) moved that Bill C-311, an
act to require the Minister for International Trade to retaliate
against import restrictions introduced by the United States of
America on Canadian refined sugar and sugar containing products,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a private
member's bill which the all-party caucus, the sugar caucus, has
proposed, Bill C-311.
With six plants in six provinces sugar production is truly a
national concern. An equally important statistic is that over the last
10 years four plants have closed and nearly 1,000 Canadian jobs
have been lost. Plants are located across the country from Lantic
Sugar in Saint John, New Brunswick, to Rogers Sugar in
Vancouver. Approximately 90 per cent of Canada's sugar
production is refined from sugar cane and sugar beet. The
remainder comes from the domestically grown sugar beet market,
produced mostly in our western Canadian farms. Whether derived
from cane or beet, Canada has an annual sugar production of about
1.1 million tonnes.
The sugar industry is one of significant and historic importance
to Atlantic Canada and to the country as a whole. Sugar refining
has provided stable employment and regional economic benefits
for about 150 years. Given the employment challenges, especially
in Atlantic Canada, that we face today, it is of paramount
importance that the sugar industry be protected at all costs or more
jobs will be lost.
Protecting the jobs of Atlantic Canadian sugar workers and those
of the rest of Canada's sugar industry is extremely important to me
and to the many members of the House and the other place who are
members of our sugar caucus.
The Liberal Party's red book stated more power and opportunity
would be given to members of Parliament to create and participate
in a process that would benefit Canadians as a whole. I believe the
all-party sugar caucus formed to protect our sugar industry from
coast to coast is good evidence of this commitment.
Last June sugar caucus members from the three official parties
went to Washington to meet with our political counterparts, the
House of Representatives ways and means committee, officials
from the United States department of agriculture, and
representatives from the United States sugar industry to discuss
problems that currently plague our sugar industry.
A notably difficult and separate issue from access is the
Helms-Burton anti-Cuba legislation.
(1105 )
While the anti-Cuba bills originally proposed to prohibit the
importation of sugar, syrups and molasses from any country that
does such trade with Cuba, I am very pleased that changes have
recently occurred and that the pressure exerted on the United States
by our Prime Minister during President Clinton's recent visit and
our own sugar caucus has resulted in this deal being struck to
remove the sugar provisions from the House version of the bill
which was formerly voted on in the House of Representatives on
Thursday.
The Senate version remains to be formerly introduced but the
redrafted version retains a narrower requirement for certification of
origin in respect of sugar, syrups and molasses. It is likely the
Senate version will also follow the lead of the House of
Representatives in deleting the references to sugar.
During our visit to Washington as a team of members of the
House of Commons representing different regions of our country
and representing all three major political parties we emphasized to
our political counterparts that Canada was being unfairly targeted
by the Helms-Burton legislation.
The combined efforts have resulted in significant changes to the
legislation. This is viewed by our sugar caucus as a major victory in
our fight to protect the jobs of Canada's sugar industry. The sugar
caucus is extremely pleased to have contributed to the efforts made
14782
by our ministers of agriculture and agri-food, foreign affairs, and
international trade on the anti-Cuba legislation.
However we must continue to fight to protect these jobs. Today
the sugar industry in Canada provides 1,400 direct full time jobs
across Canada. In the west many more seasonal positions are
provided during the annual beet harvest. Aside from the direct
number of jobs created, many other regional benefits flow from
having a Canadian based sugar industry. The direct employment
figures do not account for those employed by sugar containing
product industries which have located in Canada to take advantage
of Canada's low sugar prices.
Canadian industrial sweetener users employ thousands of
people, with annual sales in the billions of dollars. The benefits
also extend upstream. By creating demand for inputs the industry
supports employment in supplier industries, including packaging
and other inputs such as transportation, fuel and electricity.
However the principal problem that still confronts our sugar
industry is restricted access to the U.S. market while our American
friends enjoy unrestricted access to our market. In Canada, in our
open and unprotected sugar market, consumers and industrial sugar
users enjoy prices roughly one-half of what they are in our
protected markets of the major sugar trading partners.
Canada's traditionally low sugar prices have had some very
attractive benefits. Because of that Canada has attracted its
processing sector which has benefited refiners, food processors,
consumers and generally the economy as a whole. Canadian sugar
producers continue to support free trade as being in the best interest
of all Canadians. However that trade must be fair. The sugar caucus
has proposed a solution to the problem of unfettered access of U.S.
sugar to our marketplace.
Bill C-311 is an act to require the Minister for International
Trade to retaliate against import restrictions introduced by the
United States on Canadian refined sugar and sugar containing
products.
(1110 )
In other words, the all-party sugar caucus wants to continue to
fight to protect the jobs of Atlantic Canadians, western Canadians,
sugar workers and the workers across this great nation by imposing
the same restrictions on American sugar exports as those which
have been imposed on ours.
The arguments for the actions outlined in Bill C-311 are very
strong. I invite my colleagues from all parties to speak on this
extremely important issue. The workers of Lantic Sugar in Saint
John and the workers from the rest of our sugar industry are
anxiously watching the debate to see what we as elected
representatives will do to address the most important problem they
are facing, tackling the unrestricted access to our market which the
U.S. sugar industry is basking in.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
extremely pleased to speak on Bill C-311, an act to require the
Minister for International Trade to retaliate against import
restrictions introduced by the United States of America on
Canadian refined sugar and sugar-containing products.
I said that I was extremely pleased to speak on this bill, and I am
pleased to do so of course, but also somewhat distressed at having
to speak on such a bill. I feel it is an unfortunate bill not because the
initiative of my colleague from Fundy-Royal is an unfortunate
one, anything but, but because I think it is unfortunate we are
placed in a situation at this time which requires us to discuss or
pass such a bill.
It is unfortunate that the two largest trading partners in the
world, Canada and the USA, have reached the stage of having to
envision bills such as this one. It is unfortunate that these two
countries, which share the longest undefended border in the world,
are forced to assess, to envisage, to discuss bills such as this one.
This bill from my colleague from Fundy-Royal, who also heads the
sugar caucus, the all-party caucus to which he referred a few
minutes ago, was introduced to this House in reaction, essentially,
to two things.
First, to a decision by the United States to restrict unilaterally
access to the American market by Canadian sugar products as of
January 1 this year. On January 1, the United States decided to
reduce Canadian sugar imports to the United States by 8,000 metric
tonnes, and it will further reduce imports of Canadian sugar by
22,000 metric tonnes as of October 1. This is a considerable
reduction, since in three months, from October 1 to December 31,
1994, we shipped more than 35,000 metric tonnes of sugar products
to the United States. This is a considerable reduction.
As a result, sugar refineries in Canada and Quebec stand to lose
$135 million, while in the process more than 2,400 jobs across
Canada and Quebec may be lost. These unilateral reductions
directly contradict the provisions of NAFTA and the provisions of
the Uruguay Round agreements that led to the creation of the World
Trade Organization.
The bill before the House today is also a reaction to legislation
proposed in the United States, the Helms-Burton bill, which would
prohibit any company importing sugar from Cuba from having
access to the American market. The bill has already reached the
floor of the House of Representatives and will soon be put to a vote
in the U.S. Senate.
The consequences of the passage of such a bill may be quite
serious for Canada and Quebec, since the bill may further restrict
access to the U.S. market for Canadian and Quebec sugar
refineries. As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal said earlier, we
went to Washington to discuss the matter with our American
colleagues,
14783
and we found that they were influenced by two stubborn
misconceptions, two misconceptions that will not budge.
(1115)
The first misconception is that Canada is flooding the American
market with sugar products. Let me say that this is totally false. It is
totally false, because Canadian refined sugar represents only 1 per
cent of the American market, and sugar containing products
represent only 3 per cent of the American market, whereas the
Americans occupy 13 per cent of our refined sugar market and 26
per cent of our market for sugar containing products. I say this to
show how wrong this misconception is.
The second misconception that is very popular in the United
States is the belief that Canada is dumping Cuban sugar on the
American market-another belief that is totally wrong. It is totally
wrong, because we differentiate in Canada between sugar produced
in Cuba and anywhere else, and this differentiation is certified. The
American authorities recognize this certification.
A few months ago, American inspectors came to Canada to
check and were satisfied with the differentiation we make between
sugar products from Cuba and other sugar products.
It is important to note as well that Canada imports more sugar
from the United States than it does from Cuba.
While we were in Washington, people asked us if our mission
was not a bit dangerous, if we did not think the Americans would
take advantage of our being in Washington to try to obtain
Canadian concessions on farm product quotas? Of course we did
not, because the two matters are completely different.
Why are they completely different? The answer is very simple.
In order to comply with the new provisions of the Uruguay Round,
which gave rise to the World Trade Organization, Canada decided
to transform its farm product quotas into tariff quotas, thus
complying with the provisions of the Uruguay Round.
The U.S. in turn did not convert already existing quotas into
tariff quotas but imposed new restrictions in flagrant violation of
the provisions in the Uruguay Round agreements, in flagrant
violation of the Marrakesh agreements.
This is a different situation because agricultural products were
already subject to quotas. The Americans cannot claim that they
were not aware of the situation since it already existed. All we did
was modify it to comply with the provisions of the Uruguay Round
agreement. As I pointed out earlier, the U.S. imposed new
restrictions. So this is not a situation that existed before.
The two situations are totally different. One cannot put in the
same basket a discussion about access to the U.S. market for
Canadian sugar products and access to the Canadian market for
U.S. agricultural products that are subject to quotas in this country.
We also saw when we were in Washington that even if the
Americans do not try to link the sugar issue with the issue of
supply-managed agricultural products, they will link it with
anything else. In Washington, they talked to us about durum wheat,
about softwood lumber, even about peanuts, believe it or not.
So the Americans are ready to link the issue of supply-managed
agricultural products with anything. They will negotiate on
anything to try to obtain concessions from Canada. They will
negotiate on anything that relates to the sugar issue in order to
extract concessions.
Finally, what must be understood is that they imposed new
restrictions on sugar, simply to exert pressure on Canada, to force it
to make concessions, whether on supply-managed agricultural
products or on something else, which is totally unacceptable
because the situations are completely different.
(1120)
In this context, I think it should be pointed out that the
government has been refusing for several months now to tie
various trade issues to one another, considering them as completely
separate issues, which are distinct from one another. I think that is
desirable.
Bill C-311, finally, was put forward to show our American
partners how concerned we were about the situation, how
deplorable we found these additional restrictions imposed by the
United States on Canadian sugar containing products. As I
mentioned earlier, it is unfortunate that we have to debate a bill like
the one before us today. That is probably why our colleagues have
decided to make this bill a non votable item, because this kind of
petty, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth attitude of tying together
discussions on completely different products does not fit in with
our view of things, in Canada and Quebec.
We are for an open market and absolutely free trade, we abide by
the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the
agreements concluded as a result of the Uruguay Round. In that
sense, we are definitely not crazy about this kind of legislation, be
it Canadian or American.
However, the purpose of this particular legislation is to clearly
convey to our American partners that we will not tolerate such an
attitude on their part and that, if need be, we are prepared to
retaliate to make sure our rights as well as the partnership and trade
relations between Canada and the U.S. are respected.
Of course this bill will not be voted on. We will not have to vote
on this bill, and it will not be passed. But not passing this bill does
not mean that the Minister of International Trade will not be
authorized to retaliate or take other action against this kind of
14784
action taken by the U.S. government. Of course, the Minister of
International Trade and the Canadian government will remain
perfectly free, if required, to retaliate against this kind of attitude
displayed by our American partners.
Nevertheless, as I said, I greatly appreciated the opportunity to
speak on this bill, although it will not be voted on. But, as I said,
the government has complete latitude and can count on our fullest
support in any action it may initiate to strengthen economic
relations between the United States, Quebec and Canada.
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when Canada and the
United States negotiated the free trade agreement that came into
effect in 1989, both sides reserved their GATT rights. As such the
United States retained its ability to take action under section 22 and
Canada retained its quantitative restriction under article XI of the
GATT.
The reservation of GATT rights was also incorporated in the
North American free trade agreement five years later. In effect both
sides, the Americans and the Canadians, agreed that a negotiated
settlement on bilateral agricultural trade would be best achieved in
the Uruguay round.
From 1982 to 1990, Canadian exports of refined sugar to the
United States were subject to an absolute quota representing 1.1 per
cent of the total U.S. imports. This roughly amounted to about
12,000 tonnes per year. Producers of raw and refined sugar from
other countries were also limited to various shares of total U.S.
imports.
(1125 )
In 1989 a GATT panel, at the request of Australia, concluded that
the United States mechanism for imposing sugar import
restrictions was in violation of the GATT. In 1990 the United States
implemented the panel recommendation by converting its absolute
quota on sugar into a tariff rate quota that essentially had the same
effect as the quota it replaced.
For Canada, implementation of the GATT panel
recommendation had an unexpected effect. The United States
decided that due to the existence of the recently signed free trade
agreement it would not apply the tariff restriction to Canada. That
was a unilateral decision.
As a result, our exports of refined sugar, which had consisted
exclusively of sugar made from Canadian grown sugar beets, have
increased since 1987 from the previous annual level of 12,000
tonnes to an average of approximately 35,000 to 38,000 tonnes per
year in the last three years. In fact we were able to triple the exports
of refined sugar to the United States following the unilateral
interpretation of the free trade agreement.
With respect to products containing sugar, the United States had
an absolute quota in place as far back as 1983. Canada, like other
countries, has always been subject to these quotas. During the last
three to four years Canadian producers, for example, due to the
high quality of their products and very competitive prices, have
accounted for the vast majority of U.S. imports of sugar.
In 1989 the United States converted its old tariff schedule to the
harmonized tariff schedule. In the process a U.S. custom service
reclassified powdered drink bases, commonly known as crystal
drink mixes, into a non-quota item. That has caused the Canadian
exports of crystal drink mixes to the United States to increase
rapidly.
[Translation]
In the case of refined sugar, the United States will apply a tariff
quota of 22,000 metric tons, as of October 1, 1995. Canadian
exports of refined sugar will be subject to that quota. As well, a
tariff quota of about 64,000 metric tons has been in effect since
January 1 of this year and includes crystal mixes for drinks and
other products containing sugar.
[English]
The government has pressed the United States to allocate to
Canada a specific share of both sugar and sugar containing product
tariff rate quotas but the United States has decided not to do so. We
regret this decision but it must be recognized that the United States
is under no international trade obligation to allocate the tariff rate
quota by country.
The imposition of unilateral retaliatory measures as requested by
the bill would be a violation of Canada's international trade
obligations as contained in the NAFTA and the agreement
establishing the World Trade Organization.
[Translation]
International trade agreements define the circumstances which
can justify the taking of retaliatory measures, as well as the specific
procedures to be followed before a party can invoke the right to
impose such measures. A party must first ask that consultations be
held to find a solution to the problem. If such consultations do not
bring mutually satisfactory results, the aggrieved party can ask that
a dispute settlement panel be set up. If the panel concludes that the
contentious action violates the contractual trade obligations of the
other party, and if that party refuses to amend its action or to
provide satisfactory trade concessions then, and only then, can
retaliatory measures be taken. Moreover, the panel must be
convinced that the proposed retaliatory measure is not
disproportionate, given the prejudice suffered. By proposing
unilateral retaliatory measures, Bill C-311 goes against the
arbitration procedure.
14785
(1130)
Consequently, the United States might decide to challenge our
action under NAFTA, or under the agreement establishing the
WTO. Moreover, Canadian exports of sugar, and possibly some
non-sugar products, might be adversely affected.
[English]
Bill C-311 does not take into account Revenue Canada's
anti-dumping duty investigation into imports of refined sugar from
a number of countries, including the United States. The
investigation was initiated following a complaint by the Canadian
Sugar Institute earlier this year and a preliminary finding of
dumping was announced on July 7 of this year. As a result,
Revenue Canada assessed provisional anti-dumping duties on
imports of refined sugar from the United States.
The investigation is following its due course in accordance with
Canadian trade remedies. The investigation has until October to
make a final determination of dumping. This will be followed by
the decision of the Canadian international trade tribunal on whether
the Canadian industry is being injured by such imports. The
decision of the Canadian international tribunal is also expected
some time in November of this year.
I would also like to mention an important development currently
taking place in the United States that could further complicate the
U.S.-Canada trade in sugar and products containing sugar. I am
referring to the proposed U.S. legislation to expand the U.S.
embargo on Cuba, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity
Act, 1995, also known as the Helms-Burton bill.
There were serious concerns earlier this year that the proposed
legislation would lead to a ban on imports of Canadian sugar and
possibly products containing more than 35 per cent sugar on the
grounds that Canada imports raw sugar from Cuba. This would
have affected over $500 million in Canadian exports of sugar and
products such as confectionery, chewing gum, jams, jellies, gelatin
mixes, as well as products already subject to U.S. quotas.
Canada has been actively registering its opposition to the
proposed legislation with the U.S administration in Congress. A
strong diplomatic note was delivered to the United States
administration and ministers have raised Canada's concerns with
their U.S. counterparts on numerous occasions. Furthermore, the
Canadian ambassador in Washington has written to many
congressional representatives on the issue. The government has
emphasized that if legislation is passed banning the import of sugar
and products containing sugar, Canada would have no option but to
respond firmly.
We are pleased to see that subsequent revisions to those
proposed bills have been made by congressional committees in the
weeks prior to the summer recess of Congress as a result of
Canadian interventions. Changes to the legislation are now being
proposed that could reduce the impact on Canadian exports in sugar
and products containing sugar. Most of the sugar provisions in the
House bill were removed before the bill proceeded to the floor.
Unilateral retaliation not sanctioned by either the World Trade
Organization or NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism would
therefore not be helpful at this time.
Finally, on behalf of the government I would like to recognize
the enormous work and valuable effort of the sugar caucus led by
my colleague, the MP for Fundy Royal. I assure the House as well
as my colleague from Fundy Royal that the government is fully
seized of the importance of resolving the issue.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak to the private member's bill introduced by the
member for Fundy Royal, Bill C-311.
I must confess that I do have a bit of a sweet tooth, so I can
assure the member that I support the thrust of his bill. I am
certainly not interested in seeing the Canadian sugar industry
damaged in any way, especially not through unfair trade
restrictions on the part of Americans. I know of the concern of all
parties in the House regarding the possible damage to our sugar
producers and I commend the work of the sugar caucus in this
regard.
I can imagine though that the bill comes at a rather awkward
time for the government, since the Americans are taking us to task
for tariffs we have put on that have precisely the same origin as the
one the bill is attacking. I have to wonder if during the negotiations
on the GATT we were outmanoeuvred and outnegotiated in this
area when we allowed the Americans to expand the category for
sugar into refined products as well.
(1135)
I would like to give a bit of background. On January 1 of this
year all countries that signed on to the Uruguay round of the GATT
were required to replace existing import quotas with tariff rate
quotas that would provide similar protection to vulnerable
industries, with the proviso that these tariff rate quotas would
eventually be reduced and dismantled.
For those members who do not know what tariff rate quotas are,
if they do not know the difference between a TRQ and an O Henry
bar, I would like to tell them. A tariff rate quota is a cutoff level. Up
until that cutoff level has been reached no tariff is payable. After
the TRQ is reached a tariff comes into play, which is usually so
sizeable that it discourages imports altogether.
On January 1 the Americans put into place a TRQ of 64,000
tonnes on all products containing sugar, such as drink mixes and
14786
gelatin desserts. At the same time, TRQs of 8,000 tonnes until the
end of September and 22,000 tonnes from October to December
were put in place for refined sugar. Since Canada is not the only
country that sells sugar and products containing sugar into the
United States, our share of the TRQ will be substantially below that
level.
It is ironic that the GATT, which was intended to provide gradual
expanded access, has actually led the Americans to restrict access
in this regard. This is grossly unfair and totally contrary to the
spirit of the Uruguay round. Furthermore, the Canadian Sugar
Institute informs me that the Americans have taken advantage of
the GATT tariffication by expanding this category to include items
that were previously unrestricted. The Canadian Sugar Institute
predicts that these restrictions could potentially lead to the loss of
2,400 direct and indirect jobs. It is a very serious matter.
I know that the hon. member who initiated the bill is concerned
about the closure of one Canadian refinery, resulting in 700
immediate jobs. He predicts an additional 1,700 jobs will be lost
through the reduced production of products containing sugar.
The hon. member proposes in his bill that consultation take place
between Canadian and American governments to determine
whether previous levels of access can be restored. If after 60 days
no satisfactory resolution is reached, American access to Canadian
sugar and the sugar products market will be restricted in direct
retaliation. More precisely, the American share of the Canadian
market will be reduced by an amount equivalent to the Canadian
market share of the American market.
Research indicates that prior to these restrictions the Canadian
share of the U.S. market was quite small. It was said earlier that it
was about 3 per cent. At the same time the American percentage of
our market share is 23 per cent. Presumably, American imports
would be held to 3 per cent, a reduction of some 20 per cent, if we
took this step. This would allow for some of the displaced
Canadian sugar to find a domestic home. That is the kind of thing
we have to do. We have to give protection to our Canadian
producers.
The American sugar industry is highly protected. The U.S.
government guarantees producers prices that are up to double the
world market price and it maintains these high prices by restricting
imports. The American government also provides loans to U.S.
producers, loans which are guaranteed by their sugar crop. If prices
fall too low and producers cannot repay the loans, the farmers
simply forfeit a part of their crop or all of their crop, leaving
Washington holding millions of tonnes of unwanted sugar. That is
exactly what we were trying to stop through the Uruguay round of
the GATT.
Not too long ago Washington assigned allotments or quotas to
domestic producers, which could now force a lot of the excess
sugar northward across our border. It is entirely possible, as the
U.S. border closes to our Canadian sugar products, that our market
could be flooded by the same American sugar products that are
highly subsidized and trying to find a new home. In the past the
Americans have sold Canada twice as much sugar as they buy from
us, running up surpluses of some $230 million.
(1140 )
Another fact worth noting is that the industry in Canada is
extremely efficient and only about 10 per cent of it receives
deficiency payments when prices drop. I am referring to the refined
beet sugar industry in Alberta.
Even though I support the bill I wonder whether another
approach might not be just as good, if not better. Since the
American industry is heavily subsidized, I wonder whether
instituting a countervail action might not be a more honourable
way to proceed. We do not need to let the Americans get away with
this underhanded action, yet it would be preferable if we could take
the high road and not stoop to the same level. It is just a thought. I
guess we need to bring the Americans to the table and negotiate an
end to the situation.
I support the bill. Should it become votable I will vote in favour.
I certainly do not want anything to disrupt my supply of bonbons.
In conclusion, I would ask the House for unanimous consent that
Bill C-311 be given votable status and that it be voted on, on
Thursday, October 5, 1995.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
in support of the bill before us to protest the trade practices
exhibited by the United States against the Canadian sugar industry
and against Canadians.
The U.S. imposed severe new trade restrictions against Canadian
sugar and products containing sugar on January 1, 1995, effectively
closing its borders to imports of Canadian refined sugar and food
products containing sugar. Its actions unfairly penalize the
efficiencies of the Canadian sugar industry and unfairly penalize
Canadians.
The United States extended the coverage of a tariff rate quota on
products containing sugar by including crystal drink mixes, for
which Canada is the main supplier. Also, on January 1, 1995, the
United States limited Canadian exports of refined sugar to 8,000
tonnes until September 30, 1995, further eroding Canada's access
to the U.S. markets.
14787
The unwillingness of the United States government to act fairly
in attempts to resolve the dispute and its disregard and violation
of general fair trading principles has resulted in undue harm to
Canadians, with potential consequences for the sugar beet
growers, sugar beet processors and Canadian cane refiners in the
long term.
[Translation]
There is a severe reduction in sales of Canadian sugar and
products containing sugar in the United States and an increase in
American sugar sales in Canada. Canadian producers are paying
dearly for this and Canadian jobs are being cut.
Entire communities have suffered, and additional job losses are
predicted. According to the Canadian industry, the Americans
constitute about one quarter of the Canadian market, while
Canadians represent only 3 per cent of the American market. That
difference is remarkable. Far worse, while the American share of
the Canadian market is on the upswing, the Canadian share of the
American market is decreasing. American exports to Canada are
four times greater than Canadian exports to the U.S.
Our market is open and barrier free. On the other hand,
Canadians are faced with tariffs which discourage free trade
between the two countries.
[English]
Signatories to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,
which include both Canada and the United States, agreed that they
would reduce barriers to trade and increase market access over
time, with the objective of creating a more open and stable trading
environment.
[Translation]
I myself have seen the damage to communities and individuals.
BC Sugar Refinery Ltd. is located in the Port of Vancouver in my
constituency of Vancouver East.
On June first of this year, the company's western Canadian
operations were consolidated under the name Rogers Sugar Ltd.
Rogers Sugar is the main sugar outlet in the west but it has had to
lay off 17 per cent of its employees in the last 16 months. Most of
the lost jobs were in Vancouver, the others in Alberta and
Manitoba.
[English]
Unless the restrictions against Canadian sugar are lifted, Rogers
Sugar may be forced to lay off more of its employees. Across
Canada the situation is equally as dire, if not more so.
(1145 )
Since 1980 we have seen the closure of four Canadian sugar
refineries and job losses in excess of 40 per cent are a direct result
of these practices. We risk the closure and the relocation of many
Canadian companies to the United States lured by lower prices for
sugar.
The U.S. trade restrictions also hurt Canadians as consumers as
they result in higher sugar prices and may lead to the decline of
high quality domestic sugar.
The sugar industry has enjoyed years of success and has
provided meaningful employment for hundreds of Canadians
across the country. It has demonstrated it is efficient and cost
competitive, but the viability and very existence of our sugar
industry is threatened by unfair trade practices. The Canadian
government has acted in good faith throughout and has worked
diligently to resolve this dispute and is left with this option, the
measures contained in the bill.
[Translation]
I would like to conclude by stating how proud I am of the efforts
of Canadian parliamentarians to resolve these differences. A
parliamentary caucus has been set up by my colleague for
Fundy-Royal and I am very proud to have also been a member.
The participating MPs and senators represent all parties in the
House. They, along with representatives of the sugar industry, have
worked very hard to resolve the matter. I am sure that this
co-operation will help Canada persuade the Americans of the
importance of reducing tariffs in this area.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, thank you
for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-311.
I support the remarks of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal
which were very appropriate, very accurate, very non-partisan and
certainly appreciated by this side of the House. The Bloc
Quebecois member and member of the sugar caucus, the hon.
member for Verchères, also made very appropriate remarks. I
totally endorse his remarks as well since they were a very positive
and constructive contribution to the debate and to the support of the
principle of the bill before us.
I would also like to thank my colleague from Peace River as the
Reform caucus trade critic for his support of the sugar industry
whether in the area of production of sugar beet sugar or the import
of sugar cane, which is refined in our country, and for supporting
the industries that use Canadian sugar in a variety of products that
are exported not only to the United States but to many other places
in the world.
I give those compliments on the grounds that it shows this issue
can be dealt with in a non-partisan way. It is a basic issue to the
country. It is a basic area where Canadians can compete in the
world market, can make a contribution not only economically but
also in an indirect sense can provide many social benefits to the
Canadian fabric.
I support the comments made with regard to the Helms-Burton
bill. I am pleased like other members here that Congress and the
14788
Senate are seeing fit to make some changes that will be of benefit
to the sugar industry of Canada.
The point I wanted to make is one of the reasons beyond
supporting the concepts already before the House. It is with regard
to the attitude I gathered of the American Sugar Alliance. The
alliance is an executive group which represents not only the
producers but also the refiners, the sugar beet producers, the cane
producers and the refiners of those two respective products. I want
to talk about that group's attitude with regard to the situation and
the advice they gave us as a committee when we visited
Washington.
I would have to say very bluntly that we were stonewalled in our
presentation. I raised a question with the alliance. I said to the
alliance: ``I believe we have set before you the current Canadian
circumstances. We are going to have limited exports. The exports
will be reduced in terms of refined sugar from some 43,000 tonnes
down to 22,000 tonnes. Of that 22,000 tonnes we in Canada have
no idea. We may get some. We may get half. We may get a little
more than that, but we could end up not receiving any portion of
that 22,000 tonnes of export opportunity into the U.S. market''. We
could be shut out completely if the Americans wanted to do that.
(1150)
I also said: ``Between our two countries we have the concept of
free trade. My sugar beet producers back home support free trade.
The refiners support free trade. We are open to that concept. We
feel that could work very well between our two nations''.
I asked how we could work together, how we could improve the
circumstances we face in Canada and what they were prepared to
do as an alliance. Their remarks were very clear and forthright:
``Why do you not go home and do what we have done in the United
States? Why not do the same thing?'' What does that really mean?
It means we would put on import quotas with regard to some
products. Maybe we would have to use other products as leverage,
but we would put a quota on the import of sugar and products
containing sugar into Canada. We would be reversing a trend that is
the essence of free trade. That was the first thing they asked us to
do, to go home and do the same thing they were doing with regard
to imports.
I asked about pricing. They said to go home and establish a
pricing system so there is a floor price for sugar in Canada, which
there is not today, and our sugar producers are not asking for that.
``Go home and do the same thing''. They said to go home and put
on import quotas, go home and put a floor price on sugar.
That is totally in contrast and is a negative interface into the way
we want our North American economy and our economy relative
even to Mexico to evolve. We want free trade and an open system
by which we can work together, compete together, but also profit
together. It is totally in contrast and I was very disappointed in that.
I raise that issue because underlying that attitude are political
forces which exist in the United States. Congressmen who
represent sugar beet areas, sugar producing areas or sugar cane
areas, or refiners in their respective constituencies are faced with
that dilemma. They are lobbied by the sugar alliance to work
against opening the borders to Canadian exports so that we could
again maybe export 43,000 tonnes of refined sugar.
A major portion of that sugar was sugar beet sugar from southern
Alberta. We can clearly understand the effect that has on my
constituency of Lethbridge and the constituency of Medicine Hat
which is adjacent to mine where there is a major industry. The
sugar beet industry has been one of the solid foundations of the
economy of southern Alberta. Losing it would be a drastic disaster
to the cities of Lethbridge and Medicine Hat, the rural areas and
Alberta as a whole.
We are fighting against that kind of attitude and that kind of
politics in these negotiations. I ask that when the government is in
negotiations it understand that force is out there. Part of our
strategy as Canadians and as a sugar caucus is that we must deal
with it knowing there is this kind of anti-force when working
toward free trade, a free exchange of ideas and free competition
between our two nations.
I certainly support the concept of the bill. It may be a lever to try
and open up the discussions and to relax some of those political
attitudes which now exist in the mill and which we have to deal
with to come to the conclusion we think should be arrived at.
(1155 )
I appreciate the work the chairman of the sugar caucus has done.
I appreciate that the government has made representations on the
issue but I urge it to work quickly. It was indicated to us that around
September 15 the U.S. department of agriculture would be making
a recommendation on what portion of the 22,000 tonnes we would
get as Canadians. I hope the government and the ministers of
agriculture and trade are making a strong recommendation.
We should have at least two-thirds of that 22,000 tonnes for
Canadian exports. If that were there at least we would be able to
have some assurance that our sugar beet industry and cane industry
in terms of refining would be stabilized and we would be able to
continue in the year or two ahead.
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in closing
the debate today I pay tribute to the new process which in many
ways we as members of Parliament have brought about in a modest
way in attempting to speak out for an issue that stands for all of us
in Canada. That is the issue of our sugar workers, whether those
workers are working in the fields of western Canada or producing
and refining sugar in Montreal, Vancouver or Saint John. I am very
14789
gratified to express to all members of the sugar caucus my
appreciation for their co-operation, guidance and advice.
This is a complex issue which has affected all of our
constituents. As I said in my opening remarks, we have lost almost
four and possibly five plants over the last 10 years in Canada and
1,000 direct jobs. We are very worried about the industry.
Bill C-311 is a line in the sand, or a line in the sugar in this case.
We as members of Parliament have said we are looking for levers.
We are looking for ways to express our concern, our dissatisfaction
and our outrage at the way Americans have access to our market.
Yet we do not have unfettered access to theirs.
I urge the House leadership and the ministers of agriculture and
international trade, as the hon. House leader for the Reform Party
has said, to make a very strong case to our American cousins. Tell
them we need some of the rate quota that is being allocated over the
next couple of weeks. If we can get some of that quota back, our
caucus will have gone a long way in making some important
statements to the Americans. They will understand this is not a
political issue for us in terms of Liberals, New Democrats, Reform
or Bloc; this is a Canadian issue and an issue affecting all of us. It
affects all workers in our country.
With that I want to thank the House. Perhaps because it is a very
important issue and an issue of such strong national concern, I
would like to make a last plea that we be given an opportunity to
vote on the issue. I move for unanimous consent to have that voted
on now.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
[Translation]
Since no more members wish to speak and the motion was not
selected as a votable item, the hour provided for consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the item is
dropped from the Order Paper, pursuant to Standing Order 96(1).
_____________________________________________
14789
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1200)
[Translation]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-103, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Income
Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce the second
reading stage of Bill C-103, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and
the Income Tax Act. The purpose of this bill is to support Canada's
cultural industries, and especially the periodicals industry.
Canadian periodicals are essential to cultural expression in
Canada. They bring Canadians together from coast to coast. They
provide a clearing house for the exchange of ideas and information.
They disseminate information and points of view that are specific
to this country and provide a voice for the country's artistic and
cultural expression.
Issues that concern Canadian periodicals are important to the
public. More than 1,400 periodicals are sold in Canada. They are an
integral part of the media environment of Canadians and, from the
economic point of view, constitute a substantial part of the cultural
sector.
Today, more than 92 per cent of the content of Canadian
periodicals is Canadian. Some of the more popular ones which
have a long publishing history, like Saturday Night and L'Actualité,
have become genuine institutions.
Strong and diverse editorial content notwithstanding, limited
circulation figures will necessarily restrict the volume and viability
of Canadian periodicals. The problem is the relative size of the
market and economies of scale.
Over the years, Canadians have consistently shown that
periodicals are important to them. For instance, in 1978 and in
1990, an increasing number of families preferred to spend their
recreation budget on Canadian or foreign periodicals as opposed to
any other cultural activity, with the exception of buying
newspapers.
Bill C-103 provides for the implementation of two measures
which I announced following recommendations by the task force
on the Canadian periodicals industry. The first measure consists in
imposing an excise tax in respect of split run editions of periodicals
distributed in Canada. In these split run editions, publishers reuse
content which was targeted at their own market and which made
money there and insert new advertising intended for a foreign
market.
These so-called Canadian split run editions are inexpensive to
publish and attract lucrative advertising. It is therefore not
surprising that they pose a serious threat to the long term viability
of the entire periodical industry.
The second measure is an anti-avoidance rule with respect to the
deductibility of advertising expenses. Let me explain. Advertising
revenues are essential to the survival of the periodical industry; 65
per cent of the revenues of Canadian periodicals come from
advertising. Since 1965, two measures taken by the Government of
Canada have helped inject advertising revenues into the Canadian
periodical industry. These revenues enable it to live alongside the
14790
powerful American periodical industry, which has direct access to
readers, to newsstands and to Canadian distributers.
These two measures are custom tariff 9958, which prohibits the
importing of split run periodicals, and section 19 of the Income Tax
Act, which permits the deduction of the costs of advertising
directed primarily at the Canadian market, on the condition that
this advertising is placed in Canadian editions of Canadian owned
or controlled periodicals.
(1205)
These measures paid off, because they led to the growth of the
Canadian periodical industry. Thanks to them, the industry has
expanded and prospered.
In April 1993, however, Sports Illustrated Canada was launched
in Canada. It was a split run edition, printed in Canada and
transmitted directly electronically from the United States.
Canadian advertisements were substituted for American ones, and
a little Canadian content was added. Sports Illustrated Canada
managed to get around custom tariff 9958, because most of its
content was sent electronically from the United States. It was
simply a loophole in the tariff laws since electronic transmission
made it possible to avoid tariff regulations.
In March 1993, the Government of Canada set up a task force on
the Canadian magazine industry. The task force's mandate was to
find ways to modernize the existing measures underpinning
government policy on the magazine industry.
After researching the problem, the task force concluded that split
run editions presented a real threat to the Canadian magazine
industry, which stood to lose up to 40 per cent of its advertising
revenue over a five year period. According to the task force, such
losses would put many magazines out of business and marginalize
even successful ones.
Task force members explored several avenues and finally
concluded that the proposed excise tax was the best solution. It
could be designed and implemented in order to avoid split run
editions.
The task force's main recommendation is therefore the key
element of this bill, whose purpose is to amend the Excise Tax Act
and address the problem of split run editions printed in Canada.
This new excise tax would apply to all periodicals distributed in
Canada and containing more than 20 per cent of reused editorial
material as well as one or more advertisements aimed at Canadians.
The proposed amendments to the Excise Tax Act will impose an
80 per cent tax on the value of all advertisements appearing in a
Canadian split run edition. Depending on circumstances, the tax
would be paid by Canadian publishers, distributors, printers or
wholesalers and not by consumers.
Periodicals otherwise subject to the tax would be exempted from
the tax based on the number of split run editions that were
distributed in Canada during the 12 month period ending on March
26, 1993, the day the task force was set up.
This tax would not restrict access to the foreign periodicals
Canadians enjoy reading. It will make it possible to modernize a
government policy that is already several years old.
[English]
The proposed amendment to the Income Tax Act will add an
anti-avoidance rule to section 19 of the act. The purpose of this
provision is to ensure that newspapers and periodicals that claim to
be Canadian are in fact Canadian owned and controlled for the
purposes of the act.
(1210)
The other recommendations of the task force deal with
strengthening the industry through increasing the effectiveness of
existing measures. Bill C-103, the legislation now before the House
to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, would not
change or create new policy concerning Canada's magazine
industry. It would simply provide a new tool to support a
longstanding magazine policy. The tax would close the loophole in
the existing policy framework.
The emergence of Sports Illustrated Canada as a new Canadian
split run edition revealed to us that we should re-examine our
policy instruments which support the Canadian magazine industry.
This led to the formation of the task force, the resulting
recommendations and the proposed new excise tax. In short, we are
modernizing the policy tools that underpin this important sector of
Canada's cultural industries.
I repeat that the excise tax would not result in a tax for Canadian
consumers. The publisher, the distributor, the printer or the
wholesaler of any magazine subject to the tax would be responsible
for paying the tax.
Why is the tax necessary? In view of the challenge to federal
magazine policy and in particular to custom tariff No. 9958, some
means must be found to maintain an environment in which
Canadian magazines can survive and flourish. Canadian magazine
publishers would be at a grave disadvantage if they were forced to
compete for advertising revenues with magazines that have
recovered their editorial costs in markets which are much larger
than the Canadian market. The average profit for a Canadian
periodical is only 2.6 per cent. To compare, the average profit for
U.S. consumer magazines is 12 per cent. Advertising is the most
important source of revenue for magazines, accounting for 65 per
cent of income. Ensuring adequate access to those revenues is
essential in main-
14791
taining a healthy Canadian magazine industry, benefiting all
magazines in all regions of the country.
The Sports Illustrated Canada case has sent a signal that it is not
possible for split run editions to enter the Canadian advertising
market in spite of the policy measures in place. The threat to the
health of the industry is real. The Canadian industry could lose up
to 40 per cent of its advertising revenue over five years. The task
force noted that such a loss would put many magazines out of
business and marginalize even successful ones.
Clearly we do not have the resources to provide the magazine
industry with a direct subsidy program that would offset the split
run problem. The proposed tax, however, would bring the support
framework up to date.
The Government of Canada is committed to the continued
existence of a viable Canadian magazine industry. We recognize
that advertising is key to the health of the magazine industry. The
new tax is consistent with Canada's international trade agreements
and obligations. Canada is the most open country in the world to
imported magazines. The new excise tax will not limit the access of
Canadians to foreign publications. Furthermore, the new tax will
not be borne by the general consumer.
Finally, the new excise tax updates the legislative framework
supporting Canada's longstanding magazine industry. The
Government of Canada agrees with the findings of the task force on
the magazine industry. The best way to support the Canadian
magazine industry is to adopt measures which will encourage
original content, regardless of the country of origin. We do not
want the kind of recycled editorial material that is commonly
dumped into split runs. We want a Canadian magazine industry that
reflects Canadian voices.
(1215)
The legislation now before the House for second reading
promises to provide the kind of environment in which the Canadian
magazine industry can survive and thrive.
I urge my colleagues in the House to promptly pass the
legislation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my remarks today will focus on Bill C-103, an act to
amend the Excise Tax and the Income Tax Act. This bill's purpose
is twofold: to put an end to the distribution of split run editions in
Canada by imposing a tax at the rate of 80 percent of the value of
all the advertisements contained in these editions and, second,
strengthen section 19 of the Income Tax Act so that tax deductions
for advertising in Canadian newspapers or periodicals really apply
only where the advertisement is placed in newspapers and
periodicals owned by Canadian interests or ones with Canadian
content.
How is split run edition defined in the legislation? Split run
edition of a periodical means an edition of an issue of the periodical
that is distributed in Canada, in which more than 20 percent of the
editorial material is the same as editorial material that appears in
the original foreign issue, and which contains advertising sold in
Canada.
Let us now ask ourselves what justifies the government in taking
such action. Is it acting out of sudden concern for Canadian culture
or is this a positive step taken by the heritage minister? No such
thing. As usual, instead of acting on its own initiative, the
government is merely reacting to legitimate pressure exerted by the
Canadian periodical industry for many years.
In fact, after Time Warner announced its intention to print a split
run edition of Sports Illustrated in Canada, the Canadian magazine
publishing community reacted strongly to this announcement,
especially since this would considerably reduce Time Warner's
advertising expenditures, thereby draining the magazine
advertising market.
The magazine industry began to exert this pressure, and sounded
the alarm back in the spring of 1993. It would have been
appropriate for the government to act then, since the Mulroney
government had all the tools required to do so at the time. Instead,
he shirked his responsibility and appointed a task force on the
Canadian periodical industry. The Liberal Party, which then formed
the opposition, denounced the Conservatives' failure to act
regarding that issue, as well as their lack of energy in defending
Canadian culture. Who would have thought that, once in office, the
Liberals would do nothing in the first two years of their mandate
for Canadian culture, except to sell it piece by piece on a silver
platter to American interests.
In March 1994, the task force released its report. It was not until
June 1995, over a year later, that the government replied to the
recommendations contained in that report by tabling Bill C-103,
which we are debating today. Now that we understand what brought
on this legislation, let us ask this question: Why did the Canadian
periodical industry object to a split-run edition of Sports Illustrated
on our market? First, because the situation of the Canadian market
for magazines is precarious and even fragile.
Indeed, in 1991, more than half of the 1,440 magazines sold in
Canada had never generated any operating profit, while such
profits for the industry as a whole stood at 2.36 per cent. To make
things even worse, these operating profits were on a downward
trend. From 1987 to 1991, operating profits for English language
magazines went from 5.2 per cent to 2.6 per cent, while those for
French language magazines went down from 8 per cent to 2.7 per
14792
cent. In fact, the Canadian market for magazines must face the
same pressures as our audio-visual industry.
The six main factors which make this industry fragile were well
summarized by the task force in its report entitled A matter of
Balance.
(1220)
These factors are as follows: First, there is the massive
penetration of imported magazines. According to the task force,
foreign magazines account for 81.4 per cent of all magazines sold
in newsstands, and for a little more than half of the total number of
mass circulation English language magazines in Canada. As in the
case of the audio-visual industry, that foreign penetration is mostly
of American origin. For example, English language foreign
magazines sold in Canada total close to 236 million copies, of
which 233 million come from the United States. Therefore, Canada
annually imports 25 times more magazines from the U.S. than it
exports.
Second, because of Canada's relatively small population and the
fact that it is split into two different linguistic groups, the potential
number of readers here is only one tenth of that in the United
States. This severely limits the potential circulation of our
magazines, as well as the revenues which can be generated from
advertising.
Third, Canadians are interested in foreign cultural products and
are therefore avid readers of American magazines.
The fourth factor is the price of imported magazines compared to
Canadian ones, which have to try to be competitive. However, it
must be recognized that foreign magazines, which have a greater
potential number of readers, generate more advertising revenues
and, consequently, produce magazines which may be more
appealing and which are certainly cheaper.
Fifth, competition by foreign magazines at the newsstand. Over
81 per cent of English magazines which can be found in newsstands
are imported from the United States. I believe that magazine
subscriptions depend, to a large extent, on the visibility of the
magazine at the newsstand.
Sixth, the ban on tobacco advertising in Canada was very costly
for Canadian magazines, depriving them of at least $10 million in
revenues, based on statistics for the last year when advertising was
allowed. Meanwhile, this type of advertising was still allowed in
the United States earning American magazines $224 million in
1992. Obviously, such an injection of money makes it possible to
sell the product much cheaper.
To protect the magazine industry, Canada took measures which,
for years, satisfied the industry. The first one was the postal
subsidy, which is 100 years old and which I will come back to later.
The second one is section 19 of the Income Tax Act, which allows
taxpayers to be granted a tax deduction if they advertise in a
Canadian magazine defined as being 75 per cent Canadian owned
with 80 per cent Canadian editorial content.
However, this measure is affected by the bill before us which is
aimed at tightening this provision, following a recommendation to
this effect by the task force. A number of witnesses reported that
Taxation Canada was lax in controlling the application of this
provision. Several taxpayers are said to have claimed
advertisements in magazines which did not meet either of the
above mentioned section 19 criteria.
The third measure is Canadian custom tariff 9958 preventing
split run editions from entering Canada. Spilt run magazines
printed outside Canada were not allowed in. For thirty years, this
legislation kept them from entering Canada, but Sports Illustrated,
using technology, outsmarted Canada in its efforts to protect its
periodical industry, transmitting via satellite the American content
of the magazine to be printed in Canada.
The bill before us today redresses this situation. If it passes,
which remains to be seen, the distribution of split run editions will
be banned or those involved will have to pay an 80 per cent excise
tax on advertising revenues derived from this transaction.
Without the prospect of earning a lot of money at the expense of
Canadian culture, Sports Illustrated should disappear soon.
(1225)
The Bloc Quebecois agrees with the last two measures the
government is proposing in the bill we are debating today, that is
the tax and the limited application of section 19 of the Income Tax
Act.
We will support the government in its efforts to abolish this
loophole which allowed Sports Illustrated to squeeze out of
Canadian magazines 250,000 dollars' worth of advertising for each
issue published.
However, we feel that the government is stopping half way. The
task force did recommend other measures to support the Canadian
magazine industry. We would like the government to follow up on
these recommendations as soon as possible.
Let us come back for a few minutes to the postal subsidies
program. Created more than a hundred years ago, this assistance
program is really useful for readers. It allows all Canadians to
receive magazines, books and newspapers through the mail since it
helps pay for the real cost of transporting such reading material.
Not so long ago, that program's budget was $220 million a year.
At the beginning of the eighties, the government and the
Magazine Association of Canada began negotiating the updating of
that program. They even agreed on a replacement formula. But
then the federal government decided to make some arbitrary cuts.
The replacement program was never implemented. Nonetheless,
14793
the resource envelope of postal subsidies will decrease from its
1990 level of $220 million to $50 million in 1996-1997.
In its report, the task force wrote this about postal subsidies, and
I quote: ``The viability of the Canadian magazine and periodical
industry depends heavily on the postal subsidy. Canadian
newsstands, particularly in the English language market, are
dominated by foreign publications: only 18.6 per cent of the
English language consumer magazines sold at newsstands are
Canadian. The task force strongly urges the government to
recognize the vital importance of this program to the industry and
to preserve it for future years''.
The Bloc Quebecois invites the government to follow up on the
task force recommendation to freeze funds for the postal subsidy
program at the level they were in 1995.
The task force on periodicals put forward another measure on
which the government remains surprisingly silent: the abolition of
the GST on all reading materials. The task force wrote in its report,
and I quote: ``The government should give serious consideration to
eliminating any sales tax on reading materials in any new tax
regime that includes exemptions''.
This tax must be eliminated for several reasons. First, it was a
Liberal promise. In March 1994, Carol Martin, a reporter, wrote in
The Canadian Forum about the magazine situation. He was
reminding us that the Liberal caucus had adopted the following
resolution, and I quote:
[English]
``A Liberal government would reaffirm the historical principles
embodied in tax free stages for the printed word and remove the
goods and services tax, GST, on reading materials''.
[Translation]
According to the Magazine Association of Canada, 50 million
U.S. copies will not pay the GST and thus enjoy an undue
advantage of 7 per cent over their Canadian counterparts.
The subscription loss due to the introduction of the GST is
another reason for eliminating this tax. The Canadian magazine
industry had predicted that it would lose one percentage point of
subscribers for each tax point that was introduced. Unfortunately,
the facts proved it was right. During the first year of the GST
implementation, the subscriber rate fell 6 per cent.
Finally, among the G-7 partners, Canada holds, with Germany,
the sad record of the highest tax on any reading material.
(1230)
Another recommendation by the task force deserves
consideration, and the Bloc Quebecois urges the government to
implement it as soon as possible, given its financial situation. Here
it is: ``That the federal and provincial governments, their agencies
and corporations, make every effort to support the Canadian
magazine industry by placing magazine or periodical
advertisements directed at the Canadian market in a way that is
consistent with federal government policy regarding Canadian
periodical publishing''.
That recommendation is all the more meaningful when we
realize that the Canadian government is one of the 30 biggest
advertisement buyers in Time Magazine, a grandfathered split run
periodical. Through its action, the government undermines its own
directives concerning advertisements in foreign magazines.
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois would have liked the Minister of
Canadian Heritage to draw a lesson from his last two years'
experience and swiftly implement the following recommendation
made by the task force: ``That the Investment Canada Act be
amended to provide that, when the Minister responsible for that
Act issues an opinion or takes any step or makes any
recommendation in connection with matters relating to Canada's
heritage or national identity concerning magazines or periodicals
and the applicability of the Investment Canada Act, he or she do so
with the concurrence of the Minister of Canadian Heritage''.
It is indeed surprising that the bill before us today remains silent
on this crucial point for the heritage department, all the more so
because that recommendation was not included in the report by
accident. Here, in fact, is the underlying anecdote.
In March 1993, when Time Warner thought about launching a
split run edition of Sports Illustrated in Canada, they went to see
Investment Canada. Time Warner wanted to know if Investment
Canada would consider the coming of the split run edition of Sports
Illustrated magazine as a new business and, in that case, subject to
an investigation, or if instead it would consider it simply as the
continuance of Time Warner's activities in Canada. At the time,
Investment Canada informed Time Warner that it considered the
coming of Sports Illustrated as the continuance of Time Warner's
activities in Canada.
When Canadian magazines owners heard that Investment
Canada had given its approval to the coming of a split run edition
of Sports Illustrated, they naturally went to the minister who was
supposed to be their natural defender, the Minister of
Communications. However, nobody in the communications
department was aware of the authorization given to Time Warner
by Investment Canada, neither the minister nor the deputy minister.
Now I would like to let the members of the task force speak,
since they reflect my way of thinking and that of the Bloc
Quebecois. I quote: ``Indeed, the Task Force considers it essential
that the Minister responsible for the Investment Canada Act obtain
the concurrence of the Minister of Canadian Heritage before
issuing an opinion on the applicability or non-applicability of the
14794
Act or taking any other step related to a proposed investment in the
magazine or periodical publishing and distribution sector''.
By the way, I would like to take this first opportunity I get to
remind the minister that we are still waiting for the government
publishing policy he promised us following the Ginn Publishing
incident. Now, our neighbours to the South, through their trade
secretary, Mickey Kantor, have reacted to this bill now before the
House. The Canadian government which has always been very
impressed by this U.S. spokesperson until now, must not give in
this time. We must see the process through and see to it that this bill
is given assent.
If the government does not put an end right now to these split
runs like Sports Illustrated, if it does not set Time Warner straight
right now, the task force on the Canadian magazine industry
believes that, first, 94 per cent of all profitable magazines would
move to zero operating profit; second, the viability of the Canadian
periodical publishing industry would be at risk; and third, as the
task force put it, and I quote: ``The Canadian magazine industry
would be seriously hurt by the entry of split-runs, and its important
contribution to Canadian communication and cultural development
would be diminished''.
(1235)
I am worried. I am afraid that the government will backtrack and
I even doubt whether it will go through with this bill.
In the last few years, in culture, the Canadian government has
shown so many times that it was putty in the hands of the United
States that I fear the worst.
On September 15, at the Canadian Conference of the Arts held in
Toronto, the heritage minister gave a so-called major speech on
culture before an attentive audience. However, during his speech,
he barely mentioned this bill which is one of the most important
cultural initiatives undertaken by his government since it came into
office. I have carefully read and reread his speech, from beginning
to end. I would like to say a few words about that speech to you and
to those who are listening today because the truth has to be told
about the Liberals who were very quick to criticize when they were
in opposition, but who have become a very passive and
wait-and-see government. There is a clear lack of leadership from
this government, particularly in the area of culture.
Two aspects of the minister's speech captured my attention.
First, the Minister of Canadian Heritage shared his feelings about
our neighbours to the south. He reminded us, among other things,
that, for many Americans, the word culture has no particular
meaning, that it is only the forces of the products and of the
entertainment industry that count.
Concerning the information highway, the minister said, and I
quote: ``We certainly have to keep in mind that the United States
have already indicated, in international negotiations or through
retaliation measures, their intention to limit the development of our
Canadian cultural policy.'' Continuing his overview of our cultural
policy, he then talked about the film and video sector. On that
subject, he accused previous governments of not having done
enough in this area. He said, and I quote: ``Today, a large part of
this sector is owned by foreign interests and most of the revenues
from this sector leave the country.''
He added: ``As for our relationship with the American film
industry, it is a different story. You are all aware of the American
presence in our movie theatres and in our video market and you are
also aware of the unsolved problem with regard to film
distribution-We want a film industry that is truly Canadian-
This requires fundamental changes in the American mentality and
in the way Americans do business. They should stop considering
Canada as being part of the American market. They know better
than anyone how to finance new productions through the marketing
of commercial rights. They also know that our ability to do the
same is limited by the lack of a level playing field.''
To conclude his thoughts about the United States, the minister
said that he hopes, one day, to share the opinion and the optimism
of Robert Lantos, president of Alliance Communications, who said
at the Montreal World Film Festival that he sees encouraging signs
on the Hollywood hills.
In view of these signs, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is
considering including in our film policy measures that will
improve our position vis-à-vis the Americans. He will contemplate
the opportunity. With such an hypothetical political will, you will
understand that the minister did not succeed in alleviating my
concerns regarding the American invasion of the Canadian cultural
field.
Finally, there is a last element of the minister's statement to
which I would like to draw your attention. The minister quoted the
red book where culture is defined in these words: ``Culture
embraces our shared perceptions and beliefs, common experiences
and values, and diverse linguistic and cultural identities:
everything that makes us uniquely Canadian. Culture is the very
essence of national identity, the bedrock of national sovereignty
and national pride. At a time when globalization and the
information and communications revolution are erasing national
borders, Canada needs more than ever to commit itself to cultural
development.
Those are the fundamentals of the debate that is presently going
on in Canada. In Canada, the minister speaks of Canadian culture,
and that is only natural. In Quebec, there is a Quebecois culture
which is just as normal and legitimate. If I take the definition of
culture provided by the minister and apply it to Quebec, here is
what I end up with: The Quebec culture is the sum of various
artistic, linguistic and religious expressions and of the intellectual
and moral values of the country which we will create on October
30, culture being what makes us different from other countries.
Culture is the very essence of Quebec's national identity. Culture is
14795
the very basis of sovereignty and pride in the country that is
Quebec.
(1240)
For me, there is not even the shadow of a doubt. The land north
of the 45th parallel which extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific
to the Arctic is composed of two countries. One has ties to the
English culture and the other to the French.
In 1982, the Canadian portion outside Quebec became separatist.
The constitution was unilaterally patriated and signed without the
consent of Quebec. Since then, the people of Quebec have come to
realize and understand fully that there is now only one founding
people in this country-anglophones-and consequently, only one
culture-the Canadian culture-enriched, of course, by the
positive and remarkable contributions of all ethnic groups in
Canada. In its very essence and uniqueness, the Canadian culture
denies the Quebec culture.
The people of Quebec do not see themselves reflected in
Canada's artistic, linguistic, religious, intellectual and moral
expressions. The people of Quebec form a distinct society. The
people of Quebec know they are different. The people of Quebec
know that they must express this difference on October 30.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
important to be very clear about the nature of the bill. In essence it
is designed to kill international competition between magazines,
more specifically magazines which come into Canada. The killing
of that competition kills a lot of good things which flow from
competition.
The legislation is really an anachronism. It is a throwback to an
earlier time when we did not have trans-global communications,
when people did not always have a great interest in seeing what was
happening in countries around the world. Clearly that does not fit
the reality of Canada and the world today.
With the bill the minister is walking up to our largest trading
partner, the United States, poking it in the eye with a stick and
asking: ``Now what would you like to buy from us?'' This is a step
backward. Cultural protectionism is no more appropriate today
than any other kind of protectionism.
While the minister is putting forward this measure of cultural
protectionism the international trade minister, the finance minister
and others are very anxious about the bill because they are trying
to endeavour to liberalize trade in other sectors. We see other
countries trying to liberalize trade, but for some reason we are
taking a step back. That betrays an attitude about what the minister
and people of this mind think about the Canadian periodical
industry, the people who write for it and the people who read those
magazines.
Canadian magazines do well because they are good. As the hon.
member from the Bloc pointed out, something like 67 per cent of
magazines on news stands are Canadian. That is not because there
is a dictate somewhere which says we must read Canadian
magazines. It is because people are interested in knowing what is
happening in their country. They are interested in knowing the
Canadian perspective.
(1245 )
According to the Canadian magazine industry task force referred
to earlier, American magazines are already losing circulation while
Canadian magazines are gaining circulation. There are good
reasons for that. People want quality and they are getting it from
their magazines.
The minister pointed to one of the things that has really helped
Canadian magazines. In that is the seed of the solution not only for
Canadian magazines but also for anything to do with Canadian
culture. He pointed to the fact that with the growth in disposable
income more people are spending more money on Canadian
periodicals. To me that is a very good indication of where we
should be going with Canadian cultural policy.
In 1988 members of the present government in the House and
across the country argued against the concept of free trade. Since
then it is no exaggeration to say that the idea of protectionism has
been thoroughly vanquished. Not a country in the world that is at
all prosperous does not believe to a large extent in the idea of free
trade any more. Even the government since 1988 has turned around
and decided it can support ideas like NAFTA, the GATT and the
World Trade Organization because there are some laws of
economics that are indisputable. Free trade does increase
prosperity.
In a sense Bill C-103 is an extension of an argument against one
particular law of economics, the economy of scale. All Sports
Illustrated and some of these other split run publications are guilty
of is utilizing the economy of scale. We do that in Canada and we
see it all the time. We see it in other sectors. We even see it in the
magazine sector where for instance Maclean's magazine, which has
a much larger circulation because it aims at a national audience, is
able to have a smaller overhead and can produce its product for a
lot less than a regional magazine like Ottawa Magazine or Alberta
Report. I do not see anybody railing against them for utilizing the
economy of scale. It is good economics; it is good business to do
that kind of thing.
14796
It is very misleading when the minister says in his speech that
if split run publications are allowed to continue in Canada it would
kill the magazine industry here. It will not be split run publications
that will contribute to the downfall of any magazine. It will be
consumers deciding for themselves what magazines they want to
purchase. That is the key.
Cultural policy has to be about what consumers want. They
certainly have in my judgment more than enough knowledge to
make those types of decisions.
A moment ago I pointed out that we should be concerned about
poking the United States in the eye with a stick, which is what I feel
we are doing here because we rely on them to consume a lot of our
exports. Thirty per cent of our national income comes from
exports, the great majority of which goes to the United States. I
wonder even for people of a protectionist sentiment if it really is
worth it to go around doing these types of things.
A moment ago a member of the Bloc Quebecois was talking
about the need to get Canadian cultural products into the United
States. Will we really be able to do that when we are on one hand
closing down our borders to culture and then on the other hand
saying that we need to get into the United States?
We have some real inconsistencies between what is being
proposed in the magazine industry by the government and what is
currently happening on the Internet. I do not see this as just
competition between magazines, American or foreign and
Canadian. I see it as a competition between different technologies.
The Internet does not have any kind of regulation that prevents
people from getting whatever they want. If people are not able to
subscribe to the magazines they want and get Canadian advertising
through the periodicals industry, they certainly can get just about
anything they want off the Internet.
(1250)
The legislation indicates that the government is not in line with
what is happening in the world of technology today. On direct to
home satellite, where the minister's department also has some
jurisdiction, there is what is called the grey market where all kinds
of American signals are coming in, completely uninhibited, and
people have complete access to them.
The Canadian periodical industry has to be the same way. We
must have that kind of direct competition and people can ultimately
make their own judgments.
One thing that is disturbing about the excise tax that is going to
be put on revenues gained from Canadian advertisers in split run
editions is that it is a punitive tax. A tax level of 80 per cent will be
levied against the printers and distributors of these magazines. It is
a punitive tax. I would argue there have been recent court decisions
which point out that the purpose of an excise tax is not to be
punitive, that it is to gather revenue. I would also argue that this
measure will not stand up in the courts. The government will have a
lot of explaining to do when it brings this measure before the
courts.
I want to talk for a moment about what the minister is implying
when he brings forward this kind of legislation. He implies several
things. He implies that people do not appreciate Canadian
magazines, which is why there needs to be protection for them. He
implies that Canadian magazines somehow cannot meet the
standards of quality of magazines from outside the country. He
implies that Canadian magazine publishers are not as capable in the
field of business as are American publishers.
Quite frankly, I really do not think the minister believes those
things, but he is implying them. With this legislation he is saying
that for some reason Canadians do not want to buy Canadian
magazines. There is a much more positive way to approach a
cultural policy for Canadian magazines. We should ask what things
can be done to ensure that Canadian magazines can compete in a
free economy against magazines from around the world.
Probably the best way to approach it is by a method the minister
hinted at earlier but really did not expand on, which is that if there
is more money available to Canadian consumers they will buy the
types of products they want. I believe those will be Canadian
products because Canadian products can compete with any in the
world.
If the government wants to come up with a cultural policy that
really benefits Canadians and leaves them complete choice and free
to pursue value and quality as they define it, it should ensure that
taxes go down. The best way to do that is to battle the debt and the
deficit which today is $564 billion. By the end of the government's
mandate Canadians will be paying something in the order of $51
billion a year in interest payments on the debt.
I do not have to tell members or the people who are watching
today that it is a very heavy tax load. With that very heavy tax load
people have less disposable income. It is not only Canadian
magazines that suffer because of that; it is all of Canadian culture.
Leisure activities are the first to go when there is a crunch.
If the Canadian cultural industry is to be expanded in all its
permutations, the best way is to ensure that Canadians have more
disposable income. If members think I am kidding, let us look at
the United States. The population of the United States, relative to
ours, has a lot of disposable income. It has a very healthy
entertainment industry. The correlation between the two is
absolutely direct. The solution for Canadian culture is not in the
past or in Bulgaria. We do not have cultural protectionism here.
The solution is in what has worked in other places in the world. It is
in what works in other sectors in our own country.
14797
(1255)
Therefore, if we want to find a way to enhance the ability of
Canadian periodicals, television, the film industry and the book
publishing industry to succeed, the best way is to knock down the
barriers, get rid of all the impediments to trade and start levelling
the playing field by ensuring that we have a tax regime that is
somewhat comparable to that of our closest trading partner. When
that day comes I can guarantee that Canadian cultural industries
will prosper like they have never prospered before.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the United States has
an advantage. It does not need paid lobbyists. It has 52 members of
the Reform Party lobbying on its behalf.
Bill C-103 is an act to defend the Canadian magazine industry
and to support the government's longstanding policy on periodical
publishing.
The threat is split runs, a tariff dodge aimed directly at the
lifeblood of the Canadian magazine industry: its Canadian
advertising base. Reports commissioned by the task force inform
us that this tactic, if left unchecked, could consume as much as 40
per cent of total Canadian magazine advertising revenues,
devastating the Canadian industry.
Successive Canadian governments have had a longstanding
history of implementing structural measures which provide support
to the Canadian magazine industry. These measures have helped
the Canadian periodical industry to survive in a challenging and
difficult environment.
The importance of Canadian periodicals has long been
recognized. Thirty years ago the O'Leary Royal Commission on
Publications observed that Canadian magazines provide the critical
analysis, informed discourse and dialogue which are an
indispensable part of Canadian society.
The O'Leary report on the role of publications had a mandate of
finding ways of furthering the development of the Canadian
identity through a genuinely Canadian periodical press. The
recommendations of this report have formed the basis of federal
periodical publishing policy.
As this commission pointed out in its 1961 report, the larger a
periodical's circulation, the more advertising it can attract and the
greater its advertising revenue. The more it can afford to spend on
editorial content, the better are its chances of obtaining more
circulation. In other words, advertising dollars are the key element
which determines the business success of a periodical.
[Translation]
The O'Leary Report recommended that the Canadian periodical
industry be supported by measures which would channel Canadian
advertising revenues to Canadian magazines.
[English]
Two policy measures were introduced in 1965 which were
designed to channel Canadian advertising revenues to Canadian
magazines: section 19 of the Income Tax Act and customs tariff
9958. Section 19 of the Income Tax Act limits tax deductions of
advertising expenditures to advertisements placed in Canadian
magazines for advertisements directed at the Canadian market.
Customs tariff 9958 prohibits the fiscal importation into Canada of
split runs or special editions of periodicals with editorial content
substantially the same as the original edition except for the
advertising which has been purchased especially to reach a
Canadian audience. These two measures created a positive
environment for Canadian magazines.
(1300)
[Translation]
Customs tariff 9958 proved to be an effective way to prevent the
distribution of split run editions. However, technological progress
has forced the government to review the effectiveness of code 9958
which had well served the industry for more than 30 years.
In particular, technology now permits to evade the spirit of
custom tariff 9958 and the objective of the federal policy regarding
periodicals.
[English]
In January 1993 Sports Illustrated announced plans for a
Canadian edition to be printed in Canada which would contain
advertisements directed at Canadians. Sports Illustrated Canada is
printed in Canada from texts electronically transmitted from the
United States. Canadian ads are then substituted for American ads
and some Canadian editorial content is added, thereby bypassing
the border controls provided for with the customs tariff code.
As a result it became apparent the policy measures the
government currently has in place could no longer fulfil their role.
[Translation]
On March 26 1993, the government announced the creation of
the task force on the Canadian periodicals industry. The act to
amend the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act implements the
main recommendation contained in the report of the task force. The
excise tax on split run editions of periodicals distributed in Canada
will eliminate the loophole used by Sports Illustrated Canada.
14798
Amendments proposed to the Excise Tax Act would impose a
tax equal to 80 per cent of the value of all the advertisements
contained in the Canadian split run edition.
Bill C-103 gives the following definition of a split run edition:
An edition distributed in Canada in which 20 per cent or more of
the editorial material does not originate in Canada and that contains
one or more advertisement destined to Canadians.
This tax will maintain the long standing governmental policy
regarding periodicals. It shows the will of the government to
support the preservation in Canada of an industry that is original,
viable and dynamic.
[English]
Each member of the House can choose to support the bill,
supporting the livelihoods of over 6,000 Canadians employed in
the domestic magazine industry while at the same time keeping
news stands well stocked with a broad choice of periodicals for the
Canadian reader.
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to discuss the
second reading of Bill C-103, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act
and the Income Tax Act.
Bill C-103 will impose an excise tax with respect to split run
editions of periodicals. The tax will be implemented at a rate of 80
per cent of the value of all the advertising contained within a split
run.
What type of publication are we talking about? A split run
edition of a periodical is one that is distributed in Canada, one in
which more than 20 per cent of editorial material is the same or
substantially the same as the editorial material that appears in one
or more periodical editions distributed primarily outside Canada. It
is one that contains an advertisement that does not appear in
identical forms in those other periodicals.
(1305 )
Ultimately the issue is split run editions of foreign magazines
which are accused of dumping foreign editorial material into
Canada to attract local ads through low cost rates. It is important to
look specifically at the Canadian magazine market.
Based on a 1993 study the 10 most popular U.S. magazines in
Canada commanded the collective circulation of approximately 2.8
million. Over the last 10 years the names of the magazines have
changed. Yet the most popular U.S. magazines in Canada today
have 25 per cent less circulation than their counterparts a decade
ago. Interestingly enough, at the same time the top 10 Canadian
magazines have increased their collective circulation by almost 15
per cent. It appears Canadian magazines are winning the battle for
readers. This is happening not because of government intervention
but because of the quality of the articles.
Even if we look at the amount of revenue generated for these
split run editions through advertising, the lion's share is still
remaining in the hands of Canadian based magazines. Last year
Sports Illustrated had six split runs in Canada which brought in ad
revenues of slightly more than $2 million. That is peanuts
compared with the $869 million in the Canadian magazine industry
as a whole.
Therefore as parliamentarians we need to fight the perception
that Canadians read the same magazines as Americans. According
to the past president of the Canadian Magazines Publishers
Association a multinational ad buyer looking at news stands here
would think the way to reach Canadians was through the same
magazines as those on the racks in the United States. However high
profile does not equal high circulation. Canadian publishers have
found ways to reach readers other than through the news stand.
For instance, magazines such as Saturday Night and Modern
Woman are distributed through newspapers. Magazines such as
Chatelaine and Maclean's have large subscription bases. Because
many Canadian magazines are subscription based it would seem
logical that they are by far more vulnerable to increased postal
rates than to split run editions.
I will take a moment to discuss the Sports Illustrated split run
editions since it is this periodical which has caused the most
controversy. Let us look at the example of the two issues of Sports
Illustrated from October 11, 1993. The contents show pages of Ron
Grant watching a home run disappear. In the Canadian edition it is
Doug Gilmour stretching after a puck. The college football
department was dropped to make way for a story on Calgary
Stampeder Doug Flutie. The ``Inside the NFL'' feature was
replaced by the ``Inside the CFL'' feature. The section ``Faces in
the Crowd'' is an all-Canadian selection rather than an
all-American selection. The same type of changes were made for
all Canadian editions.
Granted this is not everything which nationalists would have
wanted. However, instead of forcing an alien sport and culture
down our throats, Sports Illustrated would be reflecting Canada to
Canadians. Nor is Sports Illustrated displacing a home grown
alternative.
There is no Canadian general sports magazine. If there were it
would survive not because of an end to split run editions of a
competitor but because Canadians would want to read it and
because it would be quality material. In other words it would stand
on its own merits.
Since it is true that most but not all of the articles in Sports
Illustrated Canada appear in Sports Illustrated United States,
Canadian publishers argue the costs are already recovered from
sales in the U.S. This means it can undercut the Canadian industry
14799
on advertising rates. In other words it would be dumping, selling its
product for less than one does at home.
(1310)
However I feel the publisher's complaints are based on a much
simpler concept referred to as economies of scale. To say that
therefore economies of scale inevitably doom Canadian culture is
to say domestic and foreign cultural products compete strictly on
price, that is Canadians do not distinguish between them on any
other basis. However, if there is one truth among nationalists, it is
that the two are not perfect substitutes, that Canadian tastes are
distinct and therefore indigenous production fills a need that
foreign art cannot, in which case Canadians should be willing to
pay a premium for the product.
On the other hand if we were not all that different from the
Americans the advantage of economies of scale should be just as
open to us as it is to them. A rash of recent Canadian television
shows such as ``Due South'' or ``The Boys of St. Vincent'' have
been hits south of the border. It is for this reason that we should be
encouraging free trade, not a trade war.
A trade war with the Americans is precisely where Bill C-103 is
headed. We as a government have the right under the NAFTA to
discriminate against American cultural companies. However let us
not forget the U.S. is also permitted to retaliate with roughly
equivalent measures. According to many news reports the U.S.
trade office is said to be drawing up a list of potential Canadian
targets for retaliation largely in the cultural or media sector.
For these reasons we on this side of the House oppose the bill.
First, Reformers do not support the notion that state sanctioned
cultural protectionism is a good policy to implement. Second, Bill
C-103 conjures up the view that Canadian magazines are not of
sufficient quality or merit to compete with foreign counterparts.
We on this side of the House know this is 100 per cent false.
Canadians are among the best in the world. We compete through
our talent and products and not through government dictated
protectionism.
I cannot understand why the government has dragged the issue
out, as it has been around for almost two years. Is this the best
solution to the problem which could have been developed over the
last two years?
A final note which I feel sums up my sentiments toward Bill
C-103 can be found in an extract from an editorial written on
January 3, 1995 in the Vancouver Sun:
The Americans have good reason to feel outrage at this piece of barefaced
protectionism-and Canadians should not find any pleasure in it, because it
only encourages continued mediocrity in the Canadian magazine industry.
Worse, it now invites U.S. retaliation just when relations across the border had
seemed to be moving into a friendlier phase.
The improved relationship is not worth jeopardizing for the dubious value of
killing the Canadian edition of Sports Illustrated. Ottawa should reconsider this
rash and ill conceived tax.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth.
A country is more than an economic unit somehow linked
together by rivers and lakes; it is much more than all of these
things. A country is people working, living together and expressing
themselves as a unity. Canada has a longstanding agreement with
our publishing industry. That agreement is to support it within not
only the North American context but also in the context of the
world.
(1315)
It seems to me that advertisers who earn their living by servicing
the Canadian market should also be prepared to support the
distribution and consumption of material within that country.
Is competition always invariably fair? The population of our
southern neighbour is almost 250 million people and Canada is
pushing barely 30 million. I do not have to give a lesson today on
economics, but there is such a thing as economies of scale. As
companies become bigger and their production lines become
bigger, their costs go down. If we were simply a network of
economic units, clearly all our cultural industries, indeed all our
industries, should be in places where there is a higher density of
population. This for us in North America would be our southern
neighbour.
That is not what Canadians want. Asked that question time and
time again over their history, Canadians have chosen to maintain a
separate entity on the northern part of the North American
continent.
I would like to put into context the broader context of the
Canadian government having a place to support the Canadian
magazine industry. It is relevant here to describe the importance of
the Canadian magazine industry to Canadians.
Canadian periodicals are an essential medium of cultural
expression for all Canadians. They serve as a channel for
conveying Canadian ideas, information and values. They are an
integral part of the process whereby Canadians define themselves
as a nation. Magazines inform, educate and entertain. They play a
vital role in the exchange of information. Canadians need Canadian
magazines.
However, Canadian magazines face a unique challenge: the
massive penetration of the Canadian market by imported
magazines, the relatively small size of the Canadian population, the
openness of Canadians to foreign cultural products, the effects of
14800
the cover prices of imported magazines on the Canadian price
structure, and the impact of overflow advertising on the potential
advertising market in Canada.
The industry's total revenue in 1993-94 was approximately $800
million. Though it has flourished culturally with over 1,300 titles,
its financial position is fragile, with overall pre-tax profits of less
than 6 per cent. Gradual changes in the rapidity of competition with
people with higher production runs could clearly wipe that 6 per
cent profit margin into losses, basically wiping out the entire
industry.
Because of the importance Canada places on having a means of
expressing its unique identity and the difficulty and challenging
environment the Canadian magazine industry faces, the need of
structural measures of support for the Canadian magazine industry
has long been recognized by successive Canadian governments.
This policy is simply a reaffirmation of the policies government
after government has taken before us in this country and it is in
support of our cultural industries.
A number of policies and program instruments to help to ensure
the development of the Canadian magazine industry have been put
into place. I mention postal subsidies. Canadian magazines have
limited access to Canadian news stands. Less than one-quarter of
Canadian magazine circulation revenue is delivered from news
stand sales. As a result, the industry relies on subscriptions to reach
its audience.
The postal subsidy, which finances concessionary postal rates
for Canadian magazines, has been an important instrument in
helping the industry reach its market. By providing stability in the
level of distribution cost the government has been able to assist
publishers in developing and implementing viable business plans
for the long term.
(1320 )
Two fiscal measures encourage Canadian advertisers to use
Canadian magazines to reach Canadian readers. The first measure,
section 19 of the Income Tax Act, has been in place since 1965. The
legislation is merely an extension of that longstanding tradition of
our government.
For advertisements directed at the Canadian market, section 19
limits tax deductions of advertising expenditures to advertisements
placed in Canadian magazines. A Canadian magazine is defined as
one that has 75 per cent Canadian ownership and control and has
editorial content that is 80 per cent different from the editorial
content of other periodicals. Here we basically disallow for tax
deduction purposes certain advertisements placed in foreign
magazines, which are basically to attract the Canadian market.
The second measure is tariff code 9958, which prohibits the
physical importation into Canada of split runs or special editions of
periodicals with editorial content that is substantially the same as
the original edition except for the advertising, which has been
purchased especially to reach the Canadian audience. This is
basically why this law is before us today. Back then physical
importation was considered to be the most important aspect of
distribution but today it can be done electronically. We can
communicate with Germany and other countries from our offices.
This is simply updating that code to reflect modern times.
Until recently the tariff code dissuaded offshore magazines from
soliciting advertising in Canadian markets. It has also succeeded in
doing so through voluntary compliance.
Financial support is also provided to a number of cultural and
scholarly publications through the Canada Council and the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The Canadian
industries development fund was established in 1990 with a budget
allocation of $33 million. Its mandate is to provide Canadian
owned and controlled firms within the cultural industries with a
range of flexible financing services, which has an emphasis on
investment loans.
This is another area where the Government of Canada is
assisting our cultural industries and possibly resisting the
importation. This does not mean that we are developing a narrow
and small country. We still obviously have the ability to access
foreign periodicals in Canada. However it underpins the
importance of maintaining and strengthening Canada's periodical
industry.
I see my time is gradually running out. I want to summarize by
saying that I am happy to be part of a government that continues to
support the concept of Canadian owned periodicals and the growth
of the industry in Canada.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in support of Bill C-103. I must say
at the outset that I find it supremely ironic that in Parliament
support for the bill should come from my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois, who stand for promoting a separate culture, and that
opposition to the bill comes from the Reform Party, which surely
should stand to promote Canadian culture at any opportunity.
I begin by making some comments on the remarks delivered by
the member for Medicine Hat, who says that the bill represents a
kind of cultural protectionism, which is no longer appropriate. This
is a bill that deals with cultural protectionism and is very
appropriate. I feel that some of my colleagues in the House,
particularly in the third party, do not seem to appreciate the central
role the spoken and written word has in the viability of a nation, the
viability of its institutions as well as the viability of its
entertainment and cultural industries.
(1325 )
Certainly in English speaking Canada the publication industry,
whether it is books, magazines or newspapers, has been under
economic pressure for a long time. In Canada we believe in free
14801
speech, which is tied with the independence of media agencies
delivering the message from Canadians. Consequently, it is
essential that these industries that deliver this cultural message in
books, magazines or newspapers remain viable.
The sad reality is, as other members have mentioned, that we are
a country one-tenth the size of the United States. What happens, for
example, in books alone is that an author who is lucky enough to
persuade a publisher that his book is worth while and it might sell
on the open market will be very fortunate if he sells enough copies
to earn perhaps $8,000 or $9,000 a year from that one book.
However, because the United States is 10 times as big, a similar
author with a similar book can make a living at it. He can make
from $70,000 to $80,000 from that single book. This is the way it is
with books and with newspapers. Newspapers these days have
come under enormous advertising pressure: the shortage of
advertising, the lack of circulation and competition from the
United States.
When next in Toronto, Mr. Speaker, visit the Toronto Star at 1
Yonge Street, Canada's largest newspaper. You will find outside on
the sidewalk various news boxes. Among those news boxes you
will see U.S.A. Today. There is a very active market in this country
for American publications and newspaper publications.
Mr. Speaker, I will take you back to your childhood for a little
bit. I will bet at one time you sold magazines. It used to be very
common to sell magazines as a child to make a bit of money. I did
that when I was a kid. I remember vividly that most of the
magazines I had to sell were American magazines. The reality is
that we are a country dominated by the American cultural
industries. There is no getting around it. To ignore this is to ignore
a fundamental reality.
It is with irony that I listened to the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata. She spoke very finely on the issue of the
need for Canadian cultural protection. The irony is that English
speaking Canada is under the greatest pressure. Here we have a
member of the Bloc Quebecois, a Quebecoise, defending English
culture in this country. She is quite right that we have to subsidize,
support and build a certain amount of protectionism around the
magazine industry because of the phenomenon of split runs. That is
a very real problem. It is true that the Canadian periodicals will
suffer adversely from that.
Ironically French language periodicals do not have the same
problem. Therefore I was very pleased to hear her defend the
government's initiative in this regard with respect to split run
publications. However, best of all, she took the debate one step
further, which I really like, and she raised the question of the GST.
The one thing I could never understand as a former journalist and
a some time author is any government that could put a tax on
books. We actually have in this country a tax on reading. If ever
there was a regressive tax that has set us back, particularly in
English speaking Canada, it is this tax on reading.
I say to the Reform Party that it does not understand how
difficult it is to get the word out as an author, a writer or as a
journalist in this country, particularly when we are English
speaking, because we are in overwhelming competition with the
Americans to the south. The previous government put a tax on
books which damages the periodical industry. It lost 6 per cent of
its circulation. Authors of books suffered.
(1330)
The member from the official opposition made a very good point
when she suggested the GST be dropped from all publications and
reading material. I support her 100 per cent on that. That
recommendation from the task force on the magazine industry is
not in Bill C-103, although I am confident the government will
make that alteration when it addresses the problem of the GST. I
hope we will see that change in the next budget.
Finally I would like to make a comment concerning the
member's comments on postal subsidies. Again I believe she is
right on the money there. In this case it is a question of distributing
Canadian newspapers as well as magazines. We would do well to
do anything in our power to make sure the Canadian point of view
gets out to Canadians. If we do not back up our own authors, our
own writers, our own journalists, our own publications, then at
least English Canada is going to slide into the United States and the
separatists will get their way by default.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
heard Liberal member after Liberal member and actually Bloc
members talk about how we are such victims in Canada, that the
U.S. is exploiting us. I suppose that is one world view of the
situation, but to me it is a pretty morbid and pessimistic way of
looking at things.
What I think is completely in alignment with how creative
people think is that Canadians can overcome some of these things.
They can overcome the fact that they have strong competition. The
reason they can overcome it is that they are the same genetically as
the Americans. Canadians can produce the same quality of books
and music as anyone else. They have proven this time and time
again.
Constantly complaining and whining about our lot in life is not
helpful at all to the debate. I am amazed the hon. member was so
distressed to see a U.S.A. Today box in front of the Toronto Star. He
must be shocked when he walks into a library and sees
Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Montesquieu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It
must be a horrible experience for him. Imagine there not being
enough John Brydens and David Suzukis. All kidding aside, I
know the
14802
member would not be shocked by that and really would not oppose
that.
The point is not in the absurdity of the exaggeration. The point is
in the premise, which is where there is real absurdity. Canadians
are more than capable of making good choices. Every day we make
thousands of decisions about all kinds of things, including very
important things such as raising our children, et cetera. We are
perfectly capable of deciding among the plethora of magazines and
books available which ones we want to read and which television
shows we want to view.
If the hon. member's argument is sound, does he recommend we
take it to its full extent? Would we put up complete barriers thereby
protecting all Canadian magazines, books, et cetera, and not
allowing others in at all? That is the logical end of his argument.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, no, I would not do it to that extent at
all. Bill C-103 addresses the problem perfectly and is entirely
adequate as it stands.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat should look at the Canadian
Football League or the various sports industries in Canada. He
would see what happens when a cultural industry driven by profit is
in direct competition with the United States. We are losing some of
those cultural sporting industries. In the case of the printed word
we cannot afford to lose it in a similar fashion. It is essential to our
democracy, our freedom and our identity as Canadians.
(1335)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth expresses
surprise that the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill. We say that
Canadian culture must be protected in the same way as Quebec
culture must be protected.
How does the hon. member explain the Canadian government's
spending so much money on advertising in foreign newspapers and
not in Canadian newspapers, particularly in the ethnic press? There
are some very important ethnic newspapers which do not have the
necessary government support; they do not have their fair share of
government advertising.
[English]
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon.
member from the Bloc Quebecois. We are very much on side on the
issue. The Government of Canada and all governments should
favour, where they can, placing advertisements in Canadian
publications.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this morning we have been listening to presentations from
Reform Party members. They have presented us with a large
collection of suppositions, perceptions and attributions. Many of
them are based on personal feelings, personal perceptions and
misguided information. Clearly it is a position which would result
in the death knell of the magazine industry in Canada. It would
mean the loss of thousands of jobs. Millions of dollars would be
taken out of the economy. That is the present position of the
Reform Party.
Reformers are slow learners; there is no doubt about it. We know
that one of the characteristics of an effective learning model is the
use of repetition. My Liberal Party colleagues have clearly pointed
out some very hard core facts which support the need for Bill
C-103. It is through repetition that I will continue to present the
facts. I hope Reform Party members will be able to handle the data
in a much more effective and positive manner and will see the need
for support by the Canadian people of the Canadian magazine
industry.
The key messages in Bill C-103 clearly point out that the
commitments of the government made on December 22, 1994 will
be supported. This is not a new policy. It is merely an extension of
the government's longstanding policy to support the Canadian
magazine industry, to channel Canadian advertising revenues to
Canadian magazines and not to American magazines. These
measures are not intended to restrict foreign magazines from
access to the Canadian market. In fact our market is wide open to
publications from all over the world.
It is the government's view that the proposed bill is consistent
with our international trade obligations. As a result, no one south of
the border should be disturbed by the actions of the government.
The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage has clearly pointed out
that the new excise tax is not a new consumer tax. I must repeat
some hard core data for this effective learning to take place.
What is a periodical? A periodical is published more than once a
year but not more than once a week. It does not have more than 70
per cent advertising content. It is available to the general public.
For the fiscal year 1993-94 a Statistics Canada survey reported
on over 1,300 titles. The survey covered six types of periodicals in
Canada. The general categories were: general consumer
magazines, special interest consumer magazines, business and
trade magazines, religious magazines, farm magazines and
scholarly magazines. There we have in six categories publications
in this country covering the field, tailoring to the needs of every
man, woman and child.
(1340)
Dealing with the hard core data, according to Statistics Canada
advertising revenues fell to $485 million in 1993-94, an 8.3 per
cent drop from the previous year and a 14.3 per cent decline since
1989-90. From 1985 to 1991 periodicals saw their market share of
advertising dollars drop from 6.6 per cent to 5.7 per cent, a clear
indication that the Canadian government must do whatever it
possibly can do to change that movement.
14803
Advertising revenue is crucial to most magazines. It supports
the cost of the editorial content and makes it possible for the
publisher to provide the magazine at rates the reader can afford.
In some cases, believe it or not, it provides the magazine at no
cost to the reader. Approximately two-thirds of all revenues of
Canadian magazines come from the advertising area. The main
thrust of federal magazine publishing policy has been to direct
Canadian advertising revenue to Canadian magazines.
The effect of the recession on advertising revenue has been quite
serious for the Canadian magazine industry. However Canadian
companies have been very effective in competing even though the
recession has taken place.
The magazine industry has demonstrated a remarkable resilience
in the face of a decline in advertising revenue. Periodicals have
managed to earn profits and to increase them recently by keeping a
tight control on costs. Since 1989-90 some cost cutting has been
achieved by reducing the number of full time and part time
employees. As well the use of contract work has increased.
Salaries, wages and fees fell 3.9 per cent in 1993-94. Non-salaried
costs fell 6.8 per cent during the same year and dropped 16.5 per
cent during the previous four years. Clearly that is action of
responsible companies.
During the past five years profits before tax as a percentage of
total revenue has ranged from a low of 2.1 per cent in 1990-91 to a
high of 5.7 per cent in 1993-94. Profitability varies by category
with business and trade periodicals earning the most profits and
religious periodicals earning the least.
As reported by Statistics Canada, paper costs will likely have a
profound impact on periodicals in the near future. According to the
industrial price index, paper prices rose 26 per cent in the first four
months of 1995 compared with the same period last year.
It is clear the magazine industry faces challenges on a number of
fronts: increasing competition for audience attention, increasing
competition for the advertiser's dollar, the need to adjust quickly to
rapid price changes, and rapid technological change. The role of
government policy has been to provide an environment in which
magazines can meet their challenges.
A range of government policy and program instruments have
been put in place and will continue to be supported by the industry
as well as by the government. These instruments include: section
19 of the Income Tax Act, tariff code 9958, grants through the
Canada Council, the postal subsidy for paid circulation Canadian
magazines, and the lending programs offered by the cultural
industries development fund.
The Canadian magazine industry is an important pipeline
between the generators of Canadian information, ideas, views and
the Canadian public. As noted by the O'Leary Royal Commission
on Publications in 1961, magazines ``can protect a nation's values
and encourage their practice. They can make democratic
government possible and better government probable. They can
soften sectional asperities and bring honourable compromises.
They can inform and educate in the arts, the sciences and
commerce. They can help market a nation's products and promote
its material wealth. In these functions it may be claimed, claimed
without much challenge, that the communications of a nation are as
vital to its life as its defences and should receive at least as great a
measure of national protection''.
(1345)
I could not have said it better. The government recognizes the
importance of periodicals in Canada for and by Canadians, much as
it did over 30 years ago when the O'Leary report was completed.
We will continue to support the industry by implementing
appropriate structural measures such as the ones proposed by the
recent task force on the Canadian magazine industry.
Bill C-103 is a key element in continuing that support. Therefore
I urge all members to ensure the bill is quickly passed.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at the
beginning of the hon. member's speech he mentioned free trade in
cultural industries was to be the death knell of the industry. Is this
not exactly the same argument the Liberal Party made in 1988
during the free trade debate? Did it not say the free trade was to be
the death knell for all these industries in Canada?
I ask the member if he was on that side. Was he making those
same arguments? Will he not admit that many industries did not die
but have prospered as a result of free trade? Will he admit that
competition and the flow of capital back and forth have actually
been good for all kinds of industries, and that ultimately the best
way to help Canadian cultural industries is for the government to
ensure a level playing field by getting taxes down so these
industries can compete against their American counterparts?
Mr. Dromisky: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague for Medicine
Hat in a sense has misconstrued or has deliberately altered my
presentation. I did not state the free trade deal was to destroy the
magazine industry in Canada. I said the presentations being made
by members of the Reform Party, especially by the member for
Medicine Hat, with all the attributes and perceptions that were sort
of misguided, would result in the death knell of the magazine
industry. I was criticizing, debating and discussing the
presentations of the members of the Reform Party versus the
stability, sustainability and health of the magazine industry in
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I agree with
the criticism voiced by the hon. member from the Reform Party.
They never see the need to protect the Canadian cultural industry.
That is their philosophy. But what surprises me somewhat is that
the Liberals are weak not only in this area of culture but in others as
14804
well. Fortunately NAFTA excludes culture. Here again, I would
like to ask you the question I asked my colleague previously.
What are your measures for giving a little more support to the
ethnic press, the ethnic newspapers, whose circulation figures are
low but which are very necessary to the ethnic communities? There
is nothing in this bill to confer such protection or support to the
ethnic press.
[English]
Mr. Dromisky: Mr. Speaker, the market forces play with the
laws that exist on municipal, provincial and especially federal
levels. They are all in harmony with each other and the industry
will continue to prosper as it is at the present time.
(1350 )
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak today to back up my colleagues from the Reform
Party and to speak against the ill conceived Bill C-103.
The bill will needlessly and rightfully attract retaliation by
American trading interests. In my role as the critic for international
trade for our party, that is a concern to me. Furthermore, it will
cheat Canadian sports readers of the bit of Canadian content they
presently enjoy.
I offer some background and a bit of history to put the bill in
perspective. Decades ago rules were written to protect Canada's
cultural industries. Even though the importation of American
magazines was and still is allowed, the government of the day
imposed some severe restrictions on advertising. Canadian
businesses can only deduct the cost of their Canadian magazine
advertisements if they appear in Canadian publications. That is
why we see so many American magazines on our news stands.
They are strictly aimed at the American market and if Canadians
are interested they can buy these magazines.
However the government introduced customs regulations which
prohibit the import of split runs. These are essentially American
magazines that contain some Canadian content and some Canadian
advertising and are trucked across the border.
Furthermore, in the NAFTA regulations Canada did retain the
right to protect its cultural industries. However, in so doing, the
Americans were saying they at least retained the right to retaliate in
kind. That is a very important feature. They are exercising that
right to retaliate and we think that will happen.
Furthermore, all these rules were written before any advances in
technology could be fully understood or predicted. When it became
possible to beam magazines across the border and have them
printed in Canada, Sports Illustrated took advantage of this new
technology and circumvented the split run border rules.
Since April 1993 it has produced several issues per year that are
essentially American versions with some Canadian stories. There is
a lot less American advertising but there is a problem. There is
some Canadian advertising. The big concern is not that Canadians
are being bombarded with American sports stories by trying to get
their eager hands on some Canadian sports stories. The concern is
that Canadian advertisers will spend their advertising dollars in
these largely American publications even though these advertisers
will not be able to deduct the cost of doing business.
The fact that Sports Illustrated has not been successful in
recruiting many Canadian advertisers does not seem to impress the
government. It is bound and determined to enter into a trade war
over the Sports Illustrated issue. It is a very serious matter, one the
government needs to review.
Therefore, what do we do? We have the Liberal government
introducing Bill C-103, largely a protectionist bill. The bill
imposes an excise tax on the highest level Canadian participant of
split run ventures. The excise tax is 80 per cent of the value of all
advertisements contained in such magazines or newspapers. It is
assumed this excise tax will never be collected because it will
effectively kill the Canadian edition of Sports Illustrated or any
ventures that could come on to the drawing board. That is what I
call protectionism.
The Liberals in 1988 were opposed to the free trade agreement
with the United States, although they have largely been converted
since. It is sort of a revival. However, sometimes I wonder what
their real commitment is. Are they committed to the free trade
principle or not? Here it would indicate they are not.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is quoted as saying
Americans cannot retaliate against this protectionism move
because the magazine is printed in Canada. I have news for the
minister. There is more than one way to cross a border than by
walking across it; planes fly and now we have computer beams
from the satellites. We cannot stop progress. The Americans will
retaliate against the bill and they have every right to. They can
make life miserable for Canadian exporters in all kinds of ways,
justified or not. We will not be able to cry foul because our hands
will not be entirely clean in this matter. We are introducing a bill
which is largely a protectionist bill.
What about our artists, our writers and our publishers? What if
they want to take advantage of the American marketplace which is
much larger and more lucrative than our own?
(1355)
Approximately 500 new channels will be available by satellite.
How will we control this type of information flow? I say we
14805
control it in the marketplace. If we have a good Canadian cultural
industry, it is a business and it will compete. If it is poor it will not.
The government is being hypercritical in that it says it is trying
to protect our magazine industry while at the same time crushing it
to death with taxes. When we ask businesses in Canada why they
are not expanding, the common theme has always been that taxes
and the cost of doing business in Canada are too high.
That is where we should be concentrating. We should be trying
to balance our budgets and bring our Canadian businesses into a
competitive position so they can compete in the international
marketplace. I believe they will do very well. We are asking our
Canadian industries to compete with one hand tied behind their
backs. There is the GST. There is a very high tax level and they
simply cannot compete under those circumstances.
Some would have us believe our cultural industries cannot
compete effectively on the basis of pure competition. That is
nonsense. We have some very good Canadian cultural content. It
would be even better if it had to face the true test of the
marketplace. That test is whether there is a quality product. There
are a number of Canadian cultural industry businesses which pass
the test and some which will have to fall by the wayside because
they simply are not quality products. The question we have to ask is
whether we should be supporting the industry through subsidy and
protectionism. I do not believe so and I will be voting against the
bill.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to the standing orders,
the House will now proceed to Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
14805
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Saturday, September 23, members of the Canadian Cottage
Country Choir had the extreme honour of participating in the World
Choir's annual performance entitled ``Voices of the World-A
Choral Spectacular''.
This year's performance of the World Choir was especially
noteworthy because it sang outside Wales for the first time in
Dublin, Ireland.
The production included over 6,400 singers from England,
Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Finland, Poland, Ukraine and the only
North American representatives, our very own Canadian Cottage
Country Choir based in Orillia, Ontario, in my riding of Simcoe
North.
The 22 members of the 4 Cs, as they are affectionately known,
are from Orillia, Victoria Road, Coboconk, Bracebridge, Barrie,
Dalyrymple and Simcoe.
I congratulate the members of the 4 Cs on behalf of all
Canadians for their outstanding performance and for proudly
representing our country at this world class event.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for two
years now, the federal government has been holding its breath and
hiding from the people of Quebec the drastic changes it has in store
for them after the referendum has been held. Let us look at this
hidden agenda.
Let us look at the UI reform they are hiding from those who have
to rely on this assistance not by choice but out of necessity; the old
age pension reform they are hiding from our seniors and all those
who have contributed to the plan for many years through their taxes
to enjoy some peace of mind in their old age; the GST reform that
they are hiding from all the businesses tied up in federal and
provincial red tape and that they have been promising since
October 1993; and the health care reform initiated by the federal
government over the heads of the provinces, that they are hiding
from users and patients.
The people of Quebec are entitled to know what to expect if they
remain in the federal system. Ottawa should announce its reforms
before the referendum is held. Show the people of Quebec the true
face of the federal government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister is stifling democracy and taking away legitimate regional
representation from the people in Atlantic Canada and all
Canadians. That is probably why he used the old-fashioned
political trick of making the announcement late Friday afternoon.
Without a doubt, the Prime Minister is running scared from the
Reform Party's call for elections to fill all Senate vacancies. He
reminds us of his 32 years in this House by insisting on the
continuation of an archaic and dying system at a time when we
need proper, fair, balanced representation from all regions of
Canada.
I condemn the continuing policy of political patronage
appointments because they subvert the true democratic process.
This kind of political patronage renders the upper house useless
and ineffective. When will this Prime Minister recognize that he is
out of touch with reality and the wishes of Canadians? The time for
old-fashioned political patronage is gone. The time for democracy
is now.
14806
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Supreme Court ruling on tobacco advertising is a wake-up call to
Canadians concerned about the state of our democracy.
The court's ruling adds to a jurisprudence that the advertising of
large corporations enjoys the same protection as the free speech of
individual citizens. The courts are transforming the charter from an
instrument that protects the human rights of citizens from an
arbitrary state into one that protects powerful corporations from the
actions taken by citizens through Parliament to establish the social
boundaries of commercial activity.
The court is wrong in determining that corporations have a right
to peddle an addictive and deadly substance, a right that overrides
the democratic right of citizens to take measures to improve public
health by regulating the promotion of dangerous tobacco products.
The government and Parliament, all of us here, should find a way
to stand up to the court by invoking the notwithstanding clause to
regulate the marketing of tobacco. This is a good example of why
the notwithstanding clause was put in the charter in the first place.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the grape harvest
season is well under way in the region of Niagara, bringing with it
the renowned Niagara Grape and Wine Festival.
I would like to congratulate Dan and Darlene Haist of the village
of Ridgeville in my riding of Erie on their being crowned the 40th
Niagara Grape king and queen. The Haists are fourth generation
grape growers who have sold their product to Niagara wine makers
for over 70 years. Decades of labour by growers like the Haists
have contributed to the evolution of our wine industry to world
status.
I invite one and all to come to the Niagara Peninsula this fall to
enjoy our fine wines and warm hospitality.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there may finally be a breakthrough in the current impasse
at Camp Ipperwash, which is located in my riding of
Lambton-Middlesex.
Last Thursday, September 21, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development and the Minister of National Defence
announced that the Hon. Robert Reid, Q.C., a former Justice of the
Supreme Court of Canada, has agreed to serve as a federal
representative to resolve the issues surrounding the return of the
Camp Ipperwash lands to the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation.
I have every confidence that Justice Reid will put his
considerable experience and talents to use in implementing the
seven-point memorandum of understanding that was worked out
between the government and the Kettle and Stony Point First
Nation on September 13.
I am especially pleased and grateful that the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development has given me his personal
assurance of his request that Justice Reid will also meet with the
representatives of the town of Bosanquet to hear their concerns and
ideas on resolving the issues surrounding the return of Camp
Ipperwash.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
Israel and the PLO announced an agreement to extend Palestinian
autonomy in the occupied West Bank. This latest agreement took
months of difficult negotiations and is an important step in
achieving a lasting peace.
[Translation]
The Canadian government has always encouraged peace efforts
in that region. Many Canadians have worked for this. Here is a
striking example for everyone to see. Even the deepest divisions
can be resolved in the public interest when those in charge work at
it in a spirit of goodwill.
[English]
I am sure that all colleagues in the House join me in
congratulating the leaders of the two sides on their latest
achievement.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, ``we
must not only win, but crush them''. That is what Claude Garcia,
the president of Mutual Standard Life, told No supporters at the
general council of the Quebec Liberal Party. The big names
supporting federalism are growing more and more arrogant as the
referendum campaign progresses, even resorting to unacceptably
strong language.
From the Prime Minister's ``we are going to clobber them'' to
Mr. Garcia's ``crush them'', it is obvious what the No supporters'
line is: We must crush those bothersome Quebecers, and our
victory must be overwhelming. To the arrogance of the No side,
Quebecers will oppose the determination of a people creating a
country for itself.
14807
(1405)
To the insults cast by those who do not want Quebec to become a
country, Quebecers will respond by presenting their blueprint for
nationhood to the Prime Minister who wants to ``clobber them''
and showing the clear-mindedness and serenity of a people looking
to the future.
Despite all the opposition from individuals displaying inordinate
arrogance, Quebecers are about to say Yes.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian medicare system needs an overhaul. We
Reformers believe the best way to overhaul a system is through
respecting provincial jurisdiction and granting provinces and
Canadians choice and flexibility.
With an Ottawa imposed deadline looming over Alberta, it has
been reported that the federal government may now be willing to
allow private clinics. What happened to the infamous line in the
sand the Minister of Health proclaimed in Victoria? Has she
decided to erase it? Why the flip-flop?
Last week in this House the minister stated: ``To date the Canada
Health Act has been extremely flexible in allowing for change
within different provinces''. If that is true, why the need for
deadlines threatening financial penalties? Based on her statement, I
would expect the minister to accept Alberta's decision to deinsure
tax funding of abortions.
The minister cannot have it both ways. Either she will allow for
genuine choice and flexibility in the health care system that works
for all Canadians or she will continue to adhere to an outdated piece
of legislation.
* * *
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let us talk success. Let us talk about the success of Canadians, who
are often shy about their accomplishments.
There is no reason why we Canadians cannot and should not be
proud of our record. Other nations recognize our worth and value
and so should we. Now is not the time to overlook, ignore, or forget
just how great Canada really is.
We cannot forget that for two years running Canada has been
ranked by the UN as the best place in the world to live. We cannot
ignore in calculating a nation's wealth that the World Bank places
Canada second in the world.
And let us not overlook the fact that at the Beijing conference on
the status of women Canada received the global award for the most
improvement in the status of women for progress made in the last
decade. This award was given by the International Federation of
Business and Professional Women. Canada has demonstrated to the
world its commitment to ensuring legislative changes that enhance
and guarantee the position of women.
These plateaus have been achieved by Canada for all Canadians.
Let us stand up and recognize all that we as Canadians have
achieved together.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, separatists are inviting Quebecers to vote at the
upcoming referendum to decide on their future within Canada.
The question concocted by the separatist leaders includes two
very distinct aspects. First, Quebecers are asked if they want to
separate from Canada; second, they are asked if they want to be
economically and politically associated with the country that they
are asked to leave.
The absurdity of all this is not so much in the wording of the
question, as in the fact that separatists refuse to let Quebecers know
about the details of such an association before the referendum.
A proposal for an economic and political association with
Canada simply cannot be implemented the way separatists are
suggesting. The public will not be fooled by such trickery and will
vote no on October 30.
* * *
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign in
Quebec, the PQ leader often rejoiced over comments made by
Salomon Brothers on the election of a separatist government and an
eventual referendum. The firm said: Moreover, contrary to current
rhetoric, the end of the debate on Quebec's separation will benefit
Canada and Quebec, regardless of whether they remain together or
separate.
Mr. Speaker, that same firm, which the PQ leader was so happy
to quote back then, just advised its clients to sell their Quebec
bonds and to wait until the eve of the referendum before buying
them back, so as to take advantage of the better interest rates which
will be generated by the political insecurity that will prevail.
Salomon Brothers is doing what it should in trying to ensure that
its clients make as much money as possible. As for the Quebec
separatist leaders, they are only interested in their separation
project and they unfortunately leave it up to the public to pay for
14808
the higher interest rates that will result from the insecurity
generated by their separatist obsession.
* * *
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last week, Laurent Beaudoin, the president of Bombardier,
felt that Quebec was too small for a multinational like his. It is
rather ironic to hear those who owe their success to Quebec
solidarity treating us as incompetents.
(1410)
While Switzerland and Sweden, each with about the same
population as Quebec, have more than twenty multinationals of this
calibre, in their opinion, Quebec will not be up to it.
A sovereign Quebec, which will rank fifteenth as a world
economic power, nothing less, will not be up to it-what an idea.
Who do they think Quebecers are anyways?
While the No camp, those who advocate the status quo and
stand-pattism are shrinking, reducing and crushing Quebec, the Yes
camp, the camp for change, believes in Quebec's and Quebecers'
potential and is betting on the young and their future.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians continue to hear news that causes them to fear for their
safety.
It was reported this morning that the Hell's Angels motorcycle
gang is claiming that they have rights over certain turf areas. One
wonders if the recent weak-kneed response to native occupations
has given lawless groups the idea that territory in our country is up
for grabs by terrorists.
When an 11-year-old is killed in gang war crossfire, the
Liberals' red book promise of ``safe homes, safe streets'' rings
increasingly hollow.
Some 12,000 people from the Montreal area have signed a
petition calling on the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice
to enact legislation aimed at breaking the power of organized crime
and protecting innocent citizens.
The Reform Party urges the Liberal government to vigorously
enforce the existing laws and to take decisive steps to stamp out the
growing tyranny of lawlessness in our country.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conseil du patronat du Québec has just
released the results of a major survey it conducted among 418 of its
corporate members, including almost all of the one hundred largest
private businesses in Quebec.
It reveals that 88 per cent of the respondents will vote no in the
referendum and 87 per cent of them are not in favour of Quebec
sovereignty. Ninety per cent of the corporate members said that a
yes vote in the referendum would result in very significant costs for
Quebec. Like the vast majority of Quebecers, business leaders
wonder what advantage there is for Quebec in separating from
Canada.
For these businesses, which are real job creators, Canada
remains unquestionably the best strategic choice for Quebec's
economic, social and cultural development.
* * *
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the daily,
Le Soleil, reported in its February 14, 1995 edition that
the head of the Quebec public service and secretary general of the
Quebec government's executive council, Louis Bernard, had asked
all deputy ministers last November to carry out detailed studies on
the goods and services the federal government provided Quebec.
The purpose, for Mr. Bernard, was to find out how government
functions would have to be reorganized so that the Government of
Quebec could take over from the federal government before
Quebec became sovereign. An initial draft of the study was to be
delivered to Mr. Le Hir by the end of the month. That was in
February.
Over seven months after the secretary of the executive council
made his remarks, these studies by officials of the Government of
Quebec remain shrouded in utter secrecy. Where is the so-called
transparency of the-
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on April 25
the Minister of Justice said in the House: ``The Canadian Police
Association, representing 35,000 frontline police officers, has now
joined with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in asking
14809
the government to enact legislation including the registration of all
firearms. They know what is in the public interest. They know it is
consistent with public safety. Let us get behind the police''.
Does the minister now stand behind the police, or does he
abandon them when they disagree with his own personal and
political ideology? The police are now calling for the reinstatement
of capital punishment and the repealing of section 745 of the
Criminal Code. The minister has rejected this request.
If the justice minister no longer considers the police opinion
valid, will he at least listen to the public? Will he listen to the 69
per cent of Canadians who support the return of capital
punishment?
_____________________________________________
14809
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government steadfastly refuses to unveil its
plans and keeps postponing the tabling of its social program
reform. Clearly the government wants to keep these cuts under
wraps until the referendum. We know that the federal budget
announced additional cuts of more than $1.5 billion in the
unemployment insurance plan, but the details are still being kept
secret.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. How can he
initiate the most massive cuts ever in our social programs,
including unemployment insurance, cuts that are tantamount to
repudiating the social equity that millions of Quebecers and
Canadians depend on?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, more than a year ago, the Minister of Human Resources
Development tabled a green paper in this House. He then
conducted consultations with the opposition and members of his
own party, followed by consultations with the public and with the
provinces. In the February budget, the Minister of Finance clearly
set out the fiscal parameters for a federal program review.
All this is public knowledge. We intend to go ahead with the
reform, because everyone in Canada agrees that the application of
the Unemployment Insurance Act must be changed to adjust it to
current economic realities. The Minister of Human Resources
Development is now looking for a better way to use this money and
make it easier for Canadians and all the provinces, including
Quebec, to find jobs and to specialize in order to be better able to
find work after a period of unemployment.
We are not like one of the coalition members, Mario Dumont,
who said in the May 1 issue of Actualité that he would even go so
far as to say that unemployment insurance should be privatized. I
do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition or Mr. Larose
agree with what Mr. Dumont said.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Quebecers face a fundamental choice, the choice of the
kind of society they want. I think they have the right to know what
kind of society this government has in mind.
And among other things, I want to ask the Prime Minister
whether we are to understand-and why not admit it, everyone
knows-that the minister wanted to carry out the reform and that it
was constantly postponed because of the referendum in Quebec.
Why will the Prime Minister not admit that the reason for these
successive postponements is that the government made the
deliberate decision to put off announcing the dramatic cuts that will
be inflicted on Quebec's unemployed because of the referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these reforms will affect all workers in Canada. The
impact will be exactly the same in all provinces, including Quebec,
so this can hardly be used to argue that we are going to treat Quebec
workers differently from workers in other provinces. The reform
will be exactly the same, and, as I explained earlier, we have been
working on this program for a long, long time.
We never knew the exact date of the referendum. In fact, we
expected a referendum in June. Now, according to the latest news,
it will not necessarily be October 30. I do not know. The writs have
not been issued. So the Minister of Human Resources Development
is not operating in terms of the potential date of a referendum that
is not yet official.
We know there is considerable debate among the Yes side on
whether or not they should go ahead. In any case, we are ready, and
Canada will win.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister said that the forthcoming reform will
affect all workers. First of all, this is an admission that all the
unemployed in Canada will be affected. We know that now.
Second, we know that unemployed workers outside Quebec will
not be asked to vote on their political future at the end of October.
I think he should understand that we now know what he meant,
when he promised he would make us face the music. Is it not
obvious to him as it now should be to everyone, that Quebec's
unemployed workers will be the first to face the music, the kind of
music the Prime Minister promised them, to the tune of more than
40 per cent of the new cuts, which represents nearly $600 million?
14810
(1420)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the way in which the workers
in Quebec, the workers throughout Canada, will be most directly
affected is by programs that give them real support to get back to
work; give them real tools to find new jobs; give them the kind of
support to get them into the labour market in a way that they have
not been able to do up to now.
Even the Quebec government, when it is not debating
separatism, comes forward with proposals. It had to change its
social programs in order to help people find employment. It admits
the old passive benefit programs do not work the way they used to.
It strikes me as very strange and very odd that the Leader of the
Opposition who on Sunday was saying that he is a member of the
group for change is now defending the status quo. He wants to
maintain unemployment. He wants to maintain benefits that do not
help people get back to work.
If he is really interested in real change then he should be
supporting initiatives that the government wants to take to give
Canadians the right to have the dignity of work throughout Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Despite all the efforts made by the Operation Unity centre to
hide from Quebecers the devastating cuts the federal government is
about to impose on the UI program, a secret document on this
reform package from the minister's office was leaked to and made
public by CNTU president Gérald Larose.
One of the things proposed in this document is to raise from 15
to 35 the minimum number of hours of work per week needed to
qualify for UI benefits.
Does the minister admit that his reform will be especially hard
on the thousands of women who work part time or on call, by
depriving them of UI support?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the mistake the hon. member
makes is to treat this document as if it has validity.
The government has not made any decisions yet on the nature of
the reform. What is being talked about is some speculation released
by the head of the CSN that has no validity in terms of the actual
package of reforms to be proposed.
One of the stated objectives of the reforms, as we have said right
from the very beginning, is to broaden the coverage of the
unemployment insurance program to ensure that the new world of
work, which includes a lot of people engaged in non-standard
work, would now have more security and better protection. That is
a commitment to which I intend to hold.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister did not say anything about improving benefits for the
people who need it; he just talked about cuts. And your mandate is
to cut at least another $1.5 billion in addition to the $1 billion you
have already cut.
Does the minister at least admit that the women who will be
especially hard hit by this proposal you are trying to hide will have
to work twice as long to qualify for UI benefits and that, if they
cannot do so, they will end up on social assistance or be unable to
find a way out?
These women have a right to know what the Canada of tomorrow
will be like if they vote No.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canada of tomorrow will
be a Canada where all Canadians, including women, are treated
with a great deal of fairness, equity and compassion.
Before the House of Commons right now is legislation dealing
with employment equity. The hon. member knows that the
government is trying to ensure that the barriers which prevent
women from getting full and equal access to the workplace are
reduced. She stands up and somehow denies the very initiative that
we are proposing today in the House of Commons.
The hon. member takes as gospel a speculative piece from some
union leader and says that is the truth when in fact I have sent to her
office 24 different studies of evaluations of the UI system that show
it does not work and Mr. Speaker-
(1425 )
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would ask you to address the Chair
at all times and not to use any props in the House.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
For the past two years the Minister of Human Resources
Development has been delaying every meaningful initiative in his
department. Much promised reforms to social security have been
gathering dust. The white paper on aging is growing older by the
day. To top it off, this weekend we learned that changes to the UI
system will be delayed until after the Quebec referendum. The
14811
system was in a mess two years ago when the minister took over
the department and it is in even more of a mess now.
Why all of the delays? Is it because of the referendum or is the
minister just unable to come up with any innovative ways of
solving the problems in our social programs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me answer the question by
way of specific example.
This morning I was able to announce with the Minister of Justice
and the Solicitor General of Canada that we have introduced, along
with the chiefs of police of Canada and representatives of all the
school boards, a major program of youth employment which will
involve hundreds of young Canadians working with local police to
deal with the issue of public safety. That was an initiative which we
took that makes a difference.
A few months ago we announced a new program of student loans
and grants to help young Canadians gain access to universities. We
announced a total reorganization of our department to decentralize
its activities so we can deliver programs at the local level.
The reform is already under way. I just hope the hon. member
will wake up and smell the roses.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, by
refusing to act immediately on such an important national issue,
the Minister of Human Resources Development is being used as a
separatist pawn. The government should have the courage to
challenge the separatist confusion head on and stop playing hide
and seek with the national agenda. That is what Canadians are
worried about.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought the leader of the
Reform Party was the separatist pawn.
What Canadians really want is to get a program that works really
well. That means taking the time and the interest to put together a
combination of initiatives which will help people get back to work,
which will give us an unemployment insurance system that is
sustainable and payable over the long term and which will enable
Canadians to make the kind of choices they want to make in the
labour market. That is what Canadians really want.
We started with a public process of consultation. We have
received the views of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Now we
are putting down the details and working on it. When it is ready,
when we have the best package possible, that is when it will be
presented to the House of Commons.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
asking the Minister of Human Resources Development to end the
confusion and to put an end to the separatist propaganda by
announcing concrete proposals for UI reform.
[Translation]
Quebecers are telling us that the status quo is not working, that
they are not interested in it. The minister has an opportunity to
show the people of Canada, including Quebecers, that we will have
the chance to work on a renewed federalism.
[English]
It is the Liberal and Tory do-nothing approach to government
that Quebecers and all Canadians are tired of.
When the minister has a chance to offer Canadians positive,
non-constitutional change, why is he sitting on the sidelines afraid
to make a move? Why does the minister not grab his glove and get
into the game?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is really
concerned about ending separatist propaganda she should stay
tuned for October 30. It will be all over at that time and we can get
on with building Canada.
The best way in which the hon. member can make a contribution
as the new spokesperson on this matter is to start putting forward
her own proposals on behalf of her party. I suggest to the hon.
member that we are working on developing the specifics.
(1430)
The member is quite right. The best way we can redefine this
country is to do it day by day in the actions we take. It is one reason
that as a government we had the initiative to start a major public
process so Canadians would know where we wanted to go and
could be involved in the process. We consulted broadly and widely.
Now we are working on developing the details.
I wish the Reform Party, which so far has absented itself from
any discussion that makes any sense, would be the first to
participate in this new kind of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development. The
confidential document from the minister's office on unemployment
insurance reform the federal government wants to keep hidden
from Quebecers proposes nearly a 20 per cent reduction in the
unemployment insurance cheques of seasonal workers.
Does the minister acknowledge that if he were to make his true
intentions with respect to these unemployment insurance cuts
14812
known now, seasonal workers would become aware that they will
be getting less money for a shorter period of time?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has once
again demonstrated that trying to pose a question based upon a
half-baked document and speculative logic and premise simply
results in confusion. I will try to clarify it with my answer and I
would suggest the hon. member pay attention.
We had a special report commissioned to look specifically at the
issue of seasonal work in Canada. There have been a number of
specific recommendations from that report and we will be acting on
those recommendations.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the minister
confirm that he is coming back again to a scheme with two classes
of unemployed, heavily penalizing seasonal workers because they
will be considered from now on to be chronically unemployed and
will receive reduced benefits? Is he aware of this? Is he prepared to
admit it?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
According to federal government sources, the minister is now
considering erasing the government's line in the sand on medicare
by allowing private clinics. This is to occur only under certain
ambiguous conditions. Will the minister confirm today her
intention to allow private clinics? Why the flip-flop?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there has been absolutely no change in this government's policy. I
would refer everyone to the letter of interpretation which went out
on January 6, 1995. That still stands.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
seems ironic to the Canadian public that this minister and the
government have lost the total moral authority to impose their will
on the provinces. The provinces are no longer willing nor will they
accept orders from Ottawa. The federal government is trying to get
out of the corner it has painted itself into. It is nothing more than a
sorry attempt at face saving.
Has the minister conceded to the fact finally that the Canada
Health Act is not working? Will she give us a date today in the
House when she will conduct an open, full review of the Canada
Health Act?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Quite the
contrary, Mr. Speaker, the Canada Health Act works. Medicare
works for Canadians. During the 1993 election this party which
formed this government stated in its platform that it would uphold
the Canada Health Act. We are keeping our promises.
Let me remind you of what the Reform Party said before the
election. I quote: ``I want to make it absolutely clear that the
Reform Party is not promoting private health care deductibles or
user fees''. That was Preston Manning in the Toronto Star on
October 2, 1993 and after the election: ``We want to amend those
sections of the act that deny the provinces flexibility to require
some Canadians to pay at least a portion of their health care costs''.
Mr. Speaker, we keep our promises.
(1435 )
The Speaker: Where possible, would hon. members please refer
to members by their riding.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development's responses would
give one the impression that he has a present in mind for Canada's
unemployed. Yet we know that the discussion paper, a virtually
final document, one that originates in his office, calls for limiting
access to unemployment and limiting the duration of benefits, as
well as paying less benefits to the chronically unemployed.
If his project were as great as all that, do you not think that he
would release it before the Quebec referendum? We know those
guys. If the Minister of Human Resources Development is hiding
his project, it is because it contains cuts.
Does the minister confirm that the order he received from the
Minister of Finance in the last budget to cut at least $1.5 billion
from unemployment benefits still stands and that his project
responds to that order?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is
obvious. The budget document of last February said that we want to
achieve a 10 per cent savings in the existing unemployment
insurance system so that we can convert those savings to the help
and development of
14813
employment in this country. That was the whole purpose and is
what the budget stated.
The hon. member would be much better off if he would read the
entire budget statement and not half of it, just as he would be if he
would stop using speculative, partial, piecemeal documents to try
to justify his own case. In both instances I suggest that he should
expand his reading.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we to
understand that, if the Minister of Human Resources Development
is going to so much trouble to conceal from the unemployed, the
unemployed in Quebec in particular, that they will have to face the
music, to use the Prime Minister's phrase, with the reform being
planned for them, it is because he wants to conceal from Quebec's
unemployed what is awaiting them in Canada, if ever they decided
to vote no, which will not happen?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I were the hon. member I
would not be talking about hidden documents. It is a bit of a
sensitive point with his party.
We have been totally open in this process. We first tabled a
major consultation book. Consultations involved over 100,000
Canadians. By the way, during those consultations it was very clear
that over 64 per cent of Quebecers were in favour of major
significant reform of the Unemployment Insurance Act. They have
already said they want to have major changes.
We have since gone through and tabled major reports on
seasonal workers. We have had the House of Commons report and
recommendations. We have just released 24 different studies by
independent experts dealing with various aspects of the
unemployment insurance program.
I would suggest that we cannot get much more open and much
more clear in what we want to do than that. What we really need is
to get off of the agenda of separatism and get back on the agenda of
jobs.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party fully endorses an elected Senate. Not more than two
and one-half weeks ago we called for the two vacant seats in the
Atlantic to be filled by an election. Even the Liberals endorsed the
concept of an elected Senate although it was in a rather
emasculated form in the Charlottetown accord. Given all of the
above, why did the Prime Minister not use this opportunity to
change the upper house from one of a house of patronage to a
house that would be truly representative of Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I voted in a referendum that included reform of the Senate
which required senators to be elected. The hon. member and his
party voted against it.
(1440 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
suggest that maybe the Prime Minister is trying for the function of
comedian instead of Prime Minister. He knows that the
Charlottetown accord proposal was weak kneed and totally
ineffective.
Why did the Prime Minister not take the opportunity to work
with the provincial premiers and get an elected senator, the same
way they did in Alberta with Senator Stan Waters? Why did he go
the old patronage route? Is he simply trying to keep control over
the entire parliamentary process like a dictator?
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would suggest that the language
is getting very, very close to being unparliamentary. I will permit
the right hon. Prime Minister to answer if he so wishes.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we had an agreement with all the premiers about an
elected Senate and the hon. member and the Reform Party voted
against the agreement in the Charlottetown accord.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The unemployed will be severely affected by cuts of at least $1.5
billion in the unemployment insurance plan as of next year. Quebec
alone stands to absorb more than $600 million worth of cuts. These
will be felt particularly in regions with a high proportion of
seasonal workers, whose benefits will be reduced, since from now
on they will be treated as second class unemployed workers.
Does the minister realize that by making Quebec alone absorb
$600 million in cuts in unemployment insurance, he is practically
putting whole regions like the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean,
Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the North Shore, the Gaspé and the
Saint-Maurice area on welfare?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe I have already
answered the question which has been asked several times.
14814
The answer bears repeating. The present unemployment
insurance system is not working very well. Since 1983 until 1993
we have seen its costs go from $8 billion to up to $20 billion.
We found that in many cases it discourages people from taking
more work. It is not providing the kind of resources people need
to get back into the job market. It does not provide the kind of
encouragement and the kinds of tools that are needed.
Other countries around the world spend 30 per cent or 40 per
cent of their labour market money on active employment measures.
We spend 16 per cent. The fact is we want to make a change in the
program to give a much stronger emphasis to the opportunities for
employment.
It strikes me as increasingly strange. Members of that party
continually say they want change, they want improvement, but
when they have an opportunity to make changes that will help
people get back to work, they say absolutely no. It is too bad they
do not say no to the referendum and yes to unemployment
insurance changes.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if his
reform is so good, he should table it now, so we can look at it and
make up our minds beforehand.
My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. Would
the minister confirm that the target he has set for his colleague at
human resources development with respect to next year's cuts in
the unemployment insurance program is still at least $1.5 billion?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear, as the
Minister of Human Resources Development said, that what we
really want is to create a springboard for job creation. That is the
basic purpose of these reforms. The minister said that the money
would be reinvested in proactive programs in order to put
Quebecers and Canadians back to work.
Now I would like to ask the hon. member, who keeps talking
about hidden agendas, why the Bloc, why the separatist movement
refused to publish a study by Georges Mathews which shows that
the deficit will triple. Why will the Bloc Quebecois and the PQ not
put the partnership offer on the table? Because it is an empty shell?
Because they are not sincere?
Mr. Speaker, yes, there is a hidden agenda, the agenda of a
separatist movement that is afraid of the truth.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs.
(1445 )
I am dismayed by the pattern in this House and in committee of
sexist and racist comments that demean all members of Parliament.
The last election greatly improved the representation in this House
of people who represent the diversity of Canada.
Could the chair please tell me what measures are being
considered by his committee to demonstrate and ensure that those
MPs who demonstrate sexist and racist behaviour are dealt with
most seriously?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure that all members of the committee are striving to make this
House a more welcome place for persons who represent the
diversity of this country.
To that end, at our meeting in June of this year there was a
discussion that took place in the committee about the advisability
of adopting more rigid rules in respect of members who abuse their
freedom of speech in this House by using abusive, racist, or sexist
language. In that regard, we studied briefly and intend to go back to
studying the examples set in other jurisdictions where for example
members are suspended for a more extended period than is now the
case, where there is a loss of pay for members who engage in this
kind of conduct, where there is a loss of travel and telephone
privileges in respect of those members, and where there is
expulsion from the parliamentary precinct, not just from the House,
for members who engage in this kind of conduct. All those matters
are being considered by the committee at this time.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Claude
Forget, a cop killer, was convicted five months ago of shooting two
Montreal police officers while he was unlawfully at large. Because
this justice minister refuses to get tough with hard core criminals,
Forget could be set free following a parole hearing.
Since the justice minister believes a harsher sentence for hate
crimes will act as a deterrent, when will the minister enact harsher
penalties to deter criminals from shooting police officers?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his question is
not fair to the facts. There are already in the Criminal Code
penalties, including life imprisonment for the kind of crime to
which he has referred.
The Forget case on its own facts involves indeed an issue having
to do with the calculation of sentences. As the hon. member well
knows, Bill C-45, which is already before the House, the Solicitor
General's bill, deals with many of the issues presented by that case.
14815
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what
it really deals with is a weak-kneed Liberal system.
The Solicitor General's press office says there is nothing that can
be done to prevent Forget from having a parole hearing in just a few
months.
If this Liberal government can pass retroactive legislation
nullifying the Pearson airport contract, why does the Solicitor
General believe a parole procedure change cannot be enforced
retroactively for dangerous current criminals?
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
acknowledge the fine contributions made by the hon. member in
committee. I would also like to remind the hon. member that we
have a mechanism in place. We have the National Parole Board,
which is going to review that case, no doubt. I am sure that a
number of the concerns raised by the hon. member as well as the
victims will no doubt be taken into consideration when this will be
deliberated by the National Parole Board of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The minister foresees requiring young people to work 26 weeks
at 35 hours a week in order to be entitled to unemployment
insurance benefits if they lose their jobs.
Given that young people already have difficulty finding stable
employment and have to go from one contract to another in order to
survive, will the minister not acknowledge that his proposal will
deny them the support of unemployment insurance and keep them
out of the labour market? Is this what the federal government has in
store for young people the day after a no vote?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will give an example of what
the federal system is doing for young people to help them get
employment.
We have worked out a series of partnerships with the private
sector where we are able to provide internships this year for close
to 25,000 young Canadians to get major training as they move from
school to work. We are investing our money in developing good
skills to meet the job requirements so that they can make that
important bridge between formal education and the workplace.
(1450 )
Fortunately, I was able to work in co-operation with the ministry
of education in Quebec and Chrysler Corporation just a month ago
to sign an agreement that will give us a new program of internship
on car maintenance and repair in Quebec through a partnership.
That to me illustrates how if we work together in partnership we
can really help our young people, as opposed to always trying to
split things apart.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, despite the minister's fine words, the level of
unemployment among young people has hardly gone down since
the last federal election, and young people did not benefit from the
slight increase in employment in 1994. In Quebec, the number of
young people on welfare has remained at 75,000 since the last
federal election.
Will the minister acknowledge that young people need help
between jobs and not a push into social assistance?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just to make sure we have the
facts clear, in the province of Quebec in the month of August the
social assistance rolls dropped by 13,000. So when the hon.
member says that nothing is being done to help them, we are
investing.
I would remind him that just last summer we signed an
agreement worth $80 million with the Government of Quebec to
help people on social assistance, including young people, to get
jobs, to get training, to get back in the market. That is something
that did not happen under the previous administration, of which the
hon. leader of the opposition was a member. We were able to do it.
We were able to get an agreement and we are helping 25,000
Quebecers get back to work today because of that agreement.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the justice minister.
On December 7, 1994, the minister, in response to my question
in the House regarding consultation between the minister and the
provinces on the gun legislation bill, said that ``consultation was
engaged in continuously with officials in the offices of every
provincial and territorial attorney general-every one of them''.
In light of the collective opposition of Alberta, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, and B.C., as
revealed this summer, does the minister still stand by that answer?
14816
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Of course I do, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, let me say that I do not accept the premise of the hon.
member's question. I do not agree that all of the governments he
has referred to are against the bill. Second, as I said last December,
we engaged in continuous consultation with the officials of
provincial governments as we went about preparing that
legislation. The mere fact that some of them, for their own reasons,
have found parts of the bill they do not agree with is no proof that
consultation did not occur. It certainly did.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, three of the
attorneys general named in my earlier question appeared before the
standing committee and said that they were not consulted. The
aboriginal groups, as well, said that they were not consulted.
Through clause 103 of Bill C-68 the Minister of Justice has
granted the federal government the power to initiate proceedings
under the Criminal Code, which is clearly an incursion into
provincial jurisdiction as guaranteed under section 92 of the
Constitution. Did the minister gain the consent of the provinces
before expanding the federal government's criminal law powers
into traditional provincial jurisdiction?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me symptomatic of the
very tired and lifeless condition of the hon. member's crusade
against this legislation that he is trying to revive an issue that was
fully debated last year and put to rest with the facts. The facts are
that there was consultation. There has been consultation throughout
this process, both with provincial governments and with aboriginal
organizations. If the results are not pleasing to the hon. member
that is too bad, but it does not mean that meaningful consultation
did not occur.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of National Defence.
Today in Vienna members of the world community are coming
together to begin another round of talks on the United Nations
protocol for certain conventional weapons, including land mines. It
was reported in the media today that the Ministry of National
Defence does not support a ban on land mines. I would ask the
minister if he could tell the House the government's policy on this
controversial issue.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we as a
government are committed to taking action with respect to land
mines, but we have to realize that until such time as all countries in
the world deal with this very difficult problem, in national defence
we have to have contingencies as part of the defence doctrine.
(1455 )
Our objective at this conference in Vienna is to put in place an
effective framework for implementation and to work toward the
day when all of these land mines will be eliminated.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The confidential document issued by the minister's office on the
UI reform the federal government is trying to hide from Quebecers
contains proposals to further restrict access to unemployment
insurance and bring down the maximum number of benefit weeks
from 50 to 45.
Given that the 1994 UI reform has already driven nearly 5,000
Quebec families to seek social assistance, will the minister
recognize that any further cut is simply forcing more and more
unemployed onto welfare? Is that what the minister has in store for
Quebec voters if they vote No?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two responses.
First, the hon. member is wrong in suggesting this is a cabinet
document. There is no document. In fact I have never signed that
kind of a document and I have not presented to cabinet my
proposals for reform.
I know what the separatists are trying to do: they are trying to
manufacture something out of a document. But I can say to the hon.
member that he should not be using that kind of speculative paper
as the basis for any kind of argument because it is simply not based
in fact.
Second, I would point out to the hon. member that included in
the changes we brought in last year was a special measure that
would provide direct assistance to the lowest-income UI users. As a
result of that reform, over 400,000 Canadians, including over
100,000 Quebecers, are receiving an additional $1,000 a year. This
shows our commitment to help the lowest-income people in this
country.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in light of the
request the minister has received from the Minister of Finance, will
he admit that the federal government's sole objective is to curb its
deficit at the expense of UI and welfare recipients through UI
reform and cutbacks on transfers to the provinces?
14817
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course not. The hon.
member knows much better than to say that.
We have said right from the very start that we have a mandate
from the people of Canada to help create jobs and get people back
to work. At the centre of that initiative is a need to change a piece
of legislation that has not had any major modification for over 50
years. It no longer relates to the kind of world of work we are in.
Enormous changes have gone on in the workplace. We want to
modernize that system, upgrade that system, improve that system
so that people have a better chance of getting employed. That is the
fundamental purpose of the reforms we are initiating.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, from the beginning the Pearson airport contract has been a
conflict of allegations and facts.
The latest allegation is that the Prime Minister discussed Pearson
and solicited funds from Jack Mathews. The facts are that as soon
as the alleged evidence of the Prime Minister's involvement
surfaced an offer worth $325 million more than Terminal 3's value
was floated, which if accepted would conveniently end the newest
allegation.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he not agree that
this latest allegation is serious and that paying off people without a
full public inquiry, which I have been requesting since the
beginning of this fiasco, would lead to an assumption of guilt?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the sad saga of the hon. member's campaign to try to
defend an indefensible deal is pathetic.
In this situation I want to quote directly, because the allegation
the hon. member made last week and is repeating again today about
the potential for the purchase by the government of Terminal 3 has
been refuted not only by the government. Jack Fleischmann,
speaking for Claridge president Peter Coughlin, said: ``The idea of
selling the terminal may have been raised casually, but never in a
serious way. To characterize it in any way as serious or
semi-serious is just ridiculous.''
The hon. member should check with members of his party. I do
not really believe that anybody other than the hon. member in the
Reform Party supports the Pearson deal.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister, who like all members is shocked by the
fact that 45,000 Canadians die each year as the result of illnesses
related to smoking.
Will the government stop giving the tobacco companies special
treatment and include them under the Hazardous Product Act?
(1500 )
Failing that, will the Prime Minister invoke the notwithstanding
provision of the Constitution to overrule the recent decision by the
Supreme Court? Surely 45,000 deaths a year is a good reason to use
the notwithstanding clause.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health replied to that question last week.
We are looking at all the options. We thought it was a good idea to
ban the advertising of these products in the media. The supreme
court ruled it was not constitutional.
We are now looking to see what can be done and if we can
change it. There was some indication in the judgment where the
judge perhaps gave us some options. The Minister of Justice is
looking at the judgment at this time along with the Minister of
Health. When we have an answer we will be happy to report to the
House of Commons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development,
who claimed this afternoon to share or have concerns about the
younger generation.
If that is so, I would like to know why his government cancelled
the Stay-in-School program designed to fight the problem of school
dropouts, a problem so important that his own colleague, the
Minister of Finance, criticized the Quebec government last
summer for not paying enough attention to the problem of school
dropouts.
Why did his government cancel the Stay-in-School program
then?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the
hon. member's question. I remind him he was a member of the
administration in the previous government and he would know the
stay in school
14818
program was funded by the previous government only for a
five-year time limit. It was sunsetted after five years.
I extended it for an additional year in order to give us time to
work with various private sector and community organizations to
enable them to pick up the program. As a result of that extension
we have been able to negotiate a number of agreements.
I am very pleased to announce we now have agreement with the
new National Basketball Association franchises in Vancouver and
Toronto which have continued to encourage the stay in school
program as part of their community involvement. We now have the
program continuing through the auspices of various important
initiatives by the National Basketball Association and other
community sponsors.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
We are all familiar with the rebuilding of infrastructure in the
Middle East, especially given the improved peace initiatives in that
region. We are also familiar with the important role Canada plays
in Middle East affairs.
Could the minister tell us what Canada is doing to ensure we are
proactive in pursuing opportunities for contracts in the rebuilding
of infrastructure in the Middle East?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question from the member for
London-Middlesex is especially timely given the progress that
has been made in the peace settlement process in the Middle East.
Against that background the need for infrastructure and the need to
sustain the economic development of the region is evident
everywhere. It is in such products that Canada is eminently
qualified to supply.
We reopened our embassy in Beirut in January, indicative of the
commitment we are making to the further progress in the Middle
East.
I also take this occasion to pay tribute to my parliamentary
secretary, the member for Ottawa Centre, who has been particularly
active in leading delegations and trade fairs to the Middle East.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of members to the presence in
the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from India led by the
Speaker of the Lower House, my brother Speaker, the Hon. Shivraj
V. Patil.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: This concludes question period.
* * *
(1505)
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I seek
clarification and I am sure you will help me.
During the last question the member for Prince
George-Bulkley Valley was standing. You, Mr. Speaker, named a
member who was not standing at the time. Is this the way it is
supposed to be?
The Speaker: It is a legitimate question. The hon. whips of all
the parties were privy to discussions which went on as to how the
Speaker will recognize various members during question period.
That a member is standing does not necessarily mean the Chair will
recognize that member.
The Chair has been provided with some guidance by the whips of
all parties, and to the extent possible your Speaker tries to fulfil
those wishes prior to going to any new members.
If the hon. member would like further clarification, I invite him
to see me either in my quarters or here behind the chair in a few
moments.
_____________________________________________
14818
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third
report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status
of Disabled Persons.
Your committee has considered Bill C-64, an act respecting
employment equity, and has agreed to report it with amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
14819
have the honour to table the 87th report of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs, which lists the members of the
Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament as well as
the associated members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this
report later this day.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if the House gives its consent, I move that the 87th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1510 )
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition which
has been circulating all across Canada. It has been signed by a
number of Canadians from Alberta, B.C. and Manitoba.
The petitioners to draw to the attention of the House that
managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an
honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value
to our society. They also state the Income Tax Act discriminates
against families that make the choice to provide care in the home to
preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition almost entirely from the city of
Duncan in the riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan dealing with the
citizens' concern about sexual predators, methods of sentencing,
the justice system and the Young Offenders Act. They are asking
the House to enact legislation to reform the justice system and the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition signed
by 30 individuals from my riding.
The petitioners pray that Parliament ensure present provisions of
the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide being
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no change in this
law.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House a petition signed
from people in Ontario and Nova Scotia.
They state the Bloc Quebecois is comprised solely of members
elected from only some constituents in the province of Quebec; that
the Reform Party of Canada having only one less member in the
House representing constituencies in five provinces and with
constituency associations in every province of Canada more truly
represents the interests of Canadians.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to preserve
Canadian unity, parliamentary tradition and to protect the rights of
all people of Canada by prevailing on the Speaker of the House of
Commons to recognize the Reform Party of Canada as the official
opposition during the remainder of the 35th Parliament of Canada.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present today 26 petitions
containing over 6,500 signatures. Despite the fact that Bill C-68
has passed the House of Commons petitions keep coming into my
office. The people who have signed these petitions are reluctant to
give up home that the law will be amended or scrapped all together.
The petitioners believe the costs of the measures proposed
within Bill C-68 have been severely understated and they feel the
already strained resources of law enforcement agencies will be
taxed beyond reasonable limits. They are therefore asking
Parliament to carefully reconsider the problem of violence in
Canadian society and enact legislation to deal with that problem
without further burdening those of us as citizens.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I gave a question to the House over 17 months ago and I
still have not received an answer. I would like to serve notice that I
intend to transfer the question and raise the subject at the
adjournment of the House.
The Speaker: Question No. 40 so transferred.
>
14820
14820
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-103,
an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
(1515 )
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill
C-103. Nominally or technically the bill deals with revenue. It is an
instrument to assist in the development of Canadian culture.
I want to take a moment to congratulate the Minister of Canadian
Heritage for his foresight in this area, as well as his very able
parliamentary secretary for her dedication to this issue and others
in the area of heritage.
[Translation]
We heard a little earlier today the minister's eloquent speech
about the advantages of this bill for an important component of the
Canadian cultural industry.
We also heard the comments by a member from the Reform
Party, and I must say that I could hardly believe my ears.
[English]
Some years ago I had the opportunity as a member of the
Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Association to attend a meeting
with U.S. legislators, congressmen and senators of the United
States. The issue of culture was on the agenda of that meeting.
It was interesting to hear the debate. At the time it was the film
industry in the United States that was protesting quite loudly what
it perceived to be certain rules in this country which did not allow
it, in its view, the opportunity to do the amount of business it felt
was the correct amount.
Today we heard a member from the Reform Party refer to some
sort of cultural nationalism and cultural patriotism, describing the
bill as being some sort of extreme right wing legislation.
[Translation]
Needless to say, those comments are totally unjustified. The
purpose of this bill, which comes from the minister and not from
some extremist supporter of Canadian nationalism, is to reassure
this country's cultural industry that we want to help promote the
growth of Canadian periodicals.
[English]
Coming back to the meeting with Canadian and U.S. legislators,
those legislators at the time were telling us about the film industry.
Obviously they had been lobbied very hard by groups in the United
States. They explained to us how they had these provisions to deal
with and how they were supposedly unfair.
I remember the answer of one of my colleagues at that meeting.
It was something like this: ``Would you as an American legislator
tolerate it if 97 per cent of all the films shown in your country were
made elsewhere? Would you tolerate it if you looked at films all
day long, every day, all week for the rest of the year and never saw
one single building, one single street or one single city located in
your country?'' They shook their heads and said: ``No, we guess we
would not''.
This situation is similar. The member from the Reform Party
who spoke about cultural nationalism and cultural protectionism,
and those other adjectives he used, surely would understand that.
Canadian cultural industries are not asking to dominate the world.
They are asking to be able to operate and to enable us to see in
magazines and periodicals the equivalent of what I described a
little earlier of the problem in the film industry. It is the same thing.
It is the same thing on paper.
I do not want to oversimplify the problem but I believe that is
what we are seeing. The issue of magazines is important. Members
across say that surely the government is not saying that the
magazine industry is so uncompetitive or so derelict that it cannot
compete elsewhere. That is not the issue.
(1520 )
There are economies of scale and entrepreneurs, particularly in
the United States, are taking advantage of them. I did not invent,
nor did the member opposite, the fact that the nation beside ours
speaks the same language as the majority of Canadians and is 10
times larger.
That is the reality with which we live. We live beside a giant. It is
not good, it is not bad, but it is there. Surely all of us understand
that. I am sure the member opposite can. We should not pretend
that we can compete-for specialty magazines particularly but for
magazines over all-that we can lose the little bit of advertising
revenue which we have, to people elsewhere and still be able to
survive. I hope the hon. member is right in saying that we can do
that everywhere. The reality is that the economies of scale make it
very difficult for that to happen.
Last year I subscribed to a magazine about skiing. They sent me
about eight monthly publications. I did not know it at the time, but
the magazine in question, even though it had a post office box in
Canada, was produced in the United States. Not one picture of a
Canadian ski slope was in those magazines. Not one advertisement
14821
was for a hotel room or anything else that I could recognize. I did
not subscribe again. I had absolutely no use for it. However I did
not know that at the time I subscribed to the magazine. These
things are not obvious when we subscribe to those magazines. How
are we supposed to know?
As communication develops more and more, the sophistication
of the methods of advertising for some of these products also
develops, such as the technique I have just described of periodicals
using post office boxes. For some reason they always seem to be in
the same town in southwestern Ontario. Now that I have subscribed
to that particular magazine, I recognize the coincidence of so many
businesses being located in a small village. Obviously they are not
located there. A variety of methods are available to those
businesses, such as using a post office box in Canada. An
application is faxed by one person, probably on the Canadian side,
to heaven knows where south of the border and then the people are
put on a mailing list and the goods are shipped back this way.
We are facing these things in this industry and in a variety of
others as well. It is not a matter of Canadians not being smart,
which the hon. member of the Reform Party said underlined the
position of the government. It has nothing to do with that at all.
[Translation]
That is why we must recognize the problem inherent in a
legislative loophole that allows some magazines to publish a
Canadian edition by inserting a number of pages or articles with
so-called Canadian content in what is otherwise a totally foreign
publication and then trying to pass it off as a Canadian product.
[English]
The split runs, as they are referred to, with components of a
particular periodical being Canadian or perhaps nominally
Canadian, do not constitute Canadian publications per se.
It is disconcerting that this bill is not receiving the support of all
members of the House. We should be speaking with one voice
about our Canadian cultural industry and about our Canadian
cultural identity. That is the very least we could do on a bill which
is perhaps to a degree housekeeping but to a larger extent is
symbolic of what we must do as Canadians.
(1525)
[Translation]
And I am disappointed by the position expressed by our
colleagues from the Reform Party.
I will support this bill later when it is voted on in the House of
Commons. In the few minutes we have left, I hope that the
members opposite-that is to say, the members from the Reform
Party-will think long and hard, examine their consciences and tell
the Canadian people that we must act together in a concerted effort
to protect Canadian cultural industries.
[English]
We have a rich history and a strong cultural heritage. As
Canadians we have not waved the flag very much. I am not an
historian. I would love to say that I am, but I am a fan of history. If I
was anything else but the MP for Glengarry I would probably have
been kicked out of office if I was not a fan of history because the
area I represent I like to say is the birthplace of Ontario.
Glengarry is an area familiar to the minister. A few months ago
he was nice enough to come and dedicate the Sir John Johnson
House, the building where, one could argue, Upper Canada was
founded in 1784. I thank the minister for his visit. I wish all
members could see this very important, historical village in my
riding where great Canadians such as Alexander Mackenzie, Simon
Fraser, John Thompson and many other northwest explorers all
lived. This one community was the birthplace of the province of
Ontario.
Mr. Milliken: Williamstown.
Mr. Boudria: Williamstown was named in honour of Sir
William Johnson who was the leader in the Mohawk valley of the
United States. The town was named by his son Sir John Johnson
when he came to Canada as the leader of the United Empire
Loyalist refugees, as they were known then, and the Mohawks. He
was the leader of both. He came with them to Canada and named
the town in honour of his father.
This is just one example of a strong, important cultural and
historical site in the constituency that I represent. I have always
thought that if Williamstown had been in the United States, not that
I wished it were there, it probably would have been the equivalent
of Gettysburg, a very important site. My point is that it is virtually
unknown to many Canadians.
As Canadians we have not recognized the importance of many of
the sites such as that, the artefacts and knowledge that is historical
and cultural in its content.
Today we are discussing a bill which is not necessarily related to
history, although I suppose it could be in the case of publications of
that nature. However in a general sense it speaks to an issue which
we should all stand up for today as Canadians, to the extent that we
can in the House. I am speaking of the protection, preservation and
enhancement of our culture and our heritage. I hope we will all do
that later today when we vote on this bill.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I can
assure the hon. member that our party stands up in favour of a
strong Canadian culture. What we disagree with is how to get there.
(1530 )
I would like to pose a question to the hon. member. First, the
hon. member talked about economies of scale. I think he would
14822
acknowledge that other industries over the last several years have
utilized economies of scale but this has not meant the complete
collapse of various Canadian industries. In fact what has happened,
which I think he would acknowledge, is that many of those
industries have grown stronger and have gone on to compete
around the world.
Bill C-103 actually prevents that from happening for the
Canadian magazine industry. I will give the member a perfect
example of that. Télémédia, a Canadian company, which actually
publishes Harrowsmith magazine out of the United States, had to
be grandfathered into the bill so that it could continue to publish in
Canada as well.
When this legislation is put in place, assuming it will be, in the
future Canadian companies will not be allowed to publish out of the
United States and then have it come back into Canada. In effect, it
stops Canadian companies from expanding. To me, that is
absolutely ludicrous. It shows how provincial and inward looking
this legislation is.
I challenge the hon. member to defend that particular aspect of
this legislation and ask him how that is going to promote Canadian
culture around the world.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is wrong.
He says that the economies of scale that exist in other industries
have not hampered Canadian businesses from operating. Perhaps
there are industries where that is true. Obviously such is the case.
However, I challenge the member to find people in the printing
business who would not agree with the proposition I am going to
make and say that when we are talking about printing and
distribution of documents, periodicals and otherwise, economies of
scale are not important.
The small book publishers in Canada would agree that the
economy of scale that exists south of the border has been very
difficult for their industry as well. I have a company in my riding
called Cormorant Books, which has published works from very
famous Canadian authors. It always has this difficulty because of
the huge size of the runs south of the border whereby one can
publish books, perhaps not of the same quality. I think our authors
are better. Maybe I am just a little biased in that regard.
Notwithstanding, the fact remains that the cost of publishing per
unit when we get into those absolutely large sizes south of the
border is such that it makes it very difficult for the Canadian
industry.
All this bill hopes to do is to provide the small incentive that will
make it such that we can help our Canadian industry a little bit in
the area of periodicals and magazines. It is not a sinister plot. It is
not cultural nationalism or cultural whatever it was the hon.
member referred to a while ago. It is simply a reflection of the
reality that we can and we should as a society have this kind of an
industry based in Canada for the benefit of Canadians.
Surely the hon. member would understand that. If he does not,
perhaps his constituents or others can remind him of the benefits of
what I have just referred to.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me
that many of us in this House have been struggling since we first
went to school and then university and participated in Canadian
society about the way in which we define ourselves as a country, as
a society, and ultimately how we survive in a world that is
becoming in some ways a globalized world. You can put it as you
like, but it would be unrealistic for us as Canadians not to recognize
that we have a unique culture in this country. We must work hard to
preserve the existence of that culture.
(1535 )
Our magazine industry is an essential component to the
preservation of our culture because our magazine industry
determines in some respect the news our citizens read. It
determines the way in which our citizens perceive events. It
determines our ability to reflect ourselves.
We have a very rich cultural expression in our magazine
industry. There are many magazines published in this country, and
many of them provide extraordinarily beneficial insights into
where we are going as a country and where, if I may say from my
own perspective as chairman of the foreign affairs committee,
Canada should place itself in the world. Those are very important
voices, which we must maintain. Those are voices we must
encourage. Those are flowers that must be nourished if we are to
survive.
We must recognize that if we allow our magazine industry to fail
and after that our film industry and after that other industries, we as
a country will be left without a voice, without an ability to express
ourselves, without an ability to affirm ourselves here in this House,
to affirm ourselves in our scholarly institutions, to affirm ourselves
in our civic institutions.
I do not wish to overemphasize this, but the richness and
diversity of our magazine industry is an important component to
the existence of our cultural identity. We can be proud of the
richness and diversity of that magazine industry and some of the
magazines we are able to read.
The unfortunate fact is that our industry is not on a sound
financial footing. The fact of the matter is that it does depend on
advertising revenues. I have the figures here. It depends about 85
per cent on its advertising revenues. Our magazine industry
publishes for a much smaller population base than its competitors
from the United States.
This is where this bill seeks to do something. It seeks to redress a
delicate balance with an enormous industry in the United States
14823
with tremendous export potential, with volumes against which we
cannot compete in any way. I am sympathetic to the point raised by
my colleague from the Reform Party that we have to recognize that
there is an export component to this as well. However, there will be
no export component to this if the industry does not survive here
domestically first. We have to preserve the basics.
This bill does not seek to in any way give an unfair advantage to
our domestic industry. It merely seeks to make sure that from a tax
perspective American publications that come here are not taking
advantage of that enormous market they have and in fact what is
the equivalent of dumping in this country. They are dumping not
only their product, but they are dumping ideas. They are dumping
their civilization. I use dumping in the term of an international
trade lawyer. It is coming in here in huge quantities, at a very cheap
price and in a way we are not able to compete with.
[Translation]
We must give ourselves the weapons we need to protect
ourselves if we want our civilization, our culture, our country to
survive in an increasingly globalized world. This is what
Parliament, what all parliamentarians should try to achieve.
[English]
This is a modest measure to try to achieve that important goal. It
fits very well within what our government has said in respect of our
trading measures. We have said clearly whenever we have sought
to develop trade policy in this country that the cultural industries of
this country and our cultural existence are not up for negotiation.
We will insist we have a right to adopt laws and measures that
protect our cultural existence.
The magazine policy we are looking at here goes back over 30
years. I can remember as a young man being at university and
reading about the dispute over Time magazine and the tax policy.
Many of the members of the House will remember the same thing.
We have grown up on this. It is not an issue that is going to go
away. It is not an issue we can afford to let go away. We owe it to
ourselves to ensure that we create the sound financial basis in our
country for the survival of our own cultural institutions and then
deal with it from a trade perspective.
This measure manages to achieve that balance. It gives our
industry that breathing room, that sense that we can survive, that
we are not going to be completely submerged in the weight and the
volume of imports of American magazines that naturally come
here. Nobody is saying we will not let magazines in. Nobody is
saying we are going to stop anything. All we are saying is that we
must ensure the financial viability of our industry, which depends
on its advertising revenues for that viability and that vitality.
(1540)
I come from the community of Rosedale, which is proud of the
vitality of the cultural industry in the city of Toronto and feeds on
it. Toronto is becoming a cultural centre of international acclaim.
Americans come in high numbers to go to our plays, to our musical
festivals, to participate in the rich cultural life we have in the city
of Toronto.
Part of that rich cultural life is there because we have
publications that feed it, fit into it, amalgamate with it and create a
sort of a whole of a sense of a vibrant cultural existence that is a
part of this country. We owe it to ourselves to continue always to
encourage that, to build on that, which is what the minister is trying
to do in the bill. It is commendable.
These are extremely complex and difficult issues, particularly in
the modern trade climate, which requires that we must recognize
there is a balance to be achieved. Overall, what we get with this
legislation is a recognition of a problem. The problem is a lack of
funding for an important industry. We get a recognition that the
way to deal with overwhelmingly powerful competition is to tell
our local producers here is something that will give them some
marginal ability to guarantee that their bottom line will allow them
to survive.
As such, the bill balances these and gives us the ability, when we
get down to it, to preserve what is an essential industry in our
country if we are to have a country where we know what our ideas
are, are able to express them, get those ideas into print, share them
with one another, and continue to make as a result a contribution to
our country and ultimately to the world as a whole. For that reason,
I support wholeheartedly the measure. I hope that other members in
the House will support it as well.
I look forward to working with the minister in other areas where
we can ensure that the cultural dimension of our domestic and
foreign policy will ensure that Canadian values and interests are
not only dealt with here but actually have access to the world as a
whole. To do that, we must first ensure we are on a sound footing at
home. This is where we start. The bill is a modest but important
contribution to that start.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): I listened to the hon.
member's speech with interest. I do not know what his background
is prior to being an MP, but I was in small business. I owned a small
business and I employed 10 people. As I listen to this talk about
giving special consideration to certain industries, whether it be
through subsidies or tax concessions or grants or whatever, as a
small business person who created jobs without any subsidies,
without any help or special consideration from government, it
really starts to irk me. And I know that it irks all the other small
business people out there who are also creating jobs without this
special treatment from government.
14824
I realize we are talking about culture here and that this gets
everybody very upset. However, why should there be any more
protection for a magazine than for any other small business,
simply because it is cultural?
I have sold my business now, but were the 10 jobs I created not
worth just as much as the jobs that are created by some magazine
that is subsidized? Does it mean it was not important because I did
not get a subsidy and it was not cultural? I had to compete with
Office Depot and huge companies like B.C. Tel, which had millions
of dollars to compete with me. Did I start whining and moaning,
asking for the government to help me? No. I got out there and did
what I did well and I made sure I concentrated on products and
services that people wanted.
What is wrong with the magazine industry looking around and
taking a few surveys to find out what its customers want and
putting it in a format people are prepared to buy, without needing a
subsidy here and a subsidy there? They would do well to build a
niche for themselves.
For example, in New Zealand, where I am from, the film
industry was subsidized forever by the government. When they had
their debt crisis down there they pulled the subsidies for the film
industry.
(1545 )
For a change, instead of making a lot of rubbish the film industry
started making worthwhile quality films which it could sell
internationally which now win awards. I am sure some members
here have seen those films.
What possible excuse could the member have to denigrate all
small businesses that fight to create jobs without these subsidies?
How does he justify giving special conditions to these other
industries?
Mr. Graham: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's observation is to
some extent legitimate in the sense that we are struggling now to
get away from the world of subsidization and special treatment for
certain industries or certain products.
However I do not think it is fair for him to suggest to the House
or to members of the public that there is an exact parallel between
an industry which manufactures a product which then goes out into
the marketplace and a cultural industry.
The member asked me my background. I taught international
trade law at university and I am involved in a small business and I
have some business interests in the United States, in the United
Kingdom and in Europe. I have had the opportunity of working
through a lot of business problems.
I do not think the member would be wise if he said all businesses
were the same and we treat them all the same.
Why is it important to preserve or give special treatment to a
threatened industry such as the magazine industry where for
example we might not choose to do that in the textiles industry, in
the shoe industry or some other industry?
The answer is that when we are talking about trade and when we
are talking about competition it is one thing to speak of
competition in normal products and goods but another when we are
talking about competition in ideas, through which the hon.
member's children will determine their view of the world, we have
talked a lot about violence in the House. We have talked a lot about
the need to preserve our society from violence. Members of the
Reform Party continually day after day speak in the House about
the need for better criminal legislation to deal with the issue of
violence but the member now wants magazines which come across
the border espousing and pushing violence on the same footing as
everything else.
The reason we need special treatment for this industry is we need
a Canadian view of life. We need a way of being able to express
ourselves. That is why it is different. It is ideas. It is the future of
our generations that we are talking about here. We are not talking
about a pair of shoes. We are not talking about a shirt or a tie. That
is why we are desperately determined to preserve something that is
the way in which we will be able to express ourselves. That is why
when we look at radio, television, magazine publishing or
newspaper publishing we always consider it with a special
provision.
The United States is no different. It pushes its industries in that
area extraordinarily hard. Everywhere we go in the world, if we
talk to French politicians, to Australian politicians, if we talk to
anyone, we are all concerned about the preservation of our cultural
values and identity. Why? Because we do not wish to have them
submerged in somebody else's concept about what we are about
and what we are trying to do.
That is what this bill is directed toward. That is why it is really
worth an exception from the general principle.
I subscribe entirely to the member's point that we must get away
from a system where government is involved in subsidizing
average industries. I strongly urge him to consider that there must
be a difference always between industries making ordinary
products and those products of the mind which represent our ability
to be stable, to be civil, to be tolerant and exist in a world which is
becoming more complex, more violent and more difficult to
survive in.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the
member for Rosedale.
14825
If we truly had a protectionist attitude maybe we would not have
ABC television or CBS television. Maybe we would not be exposed
to any television programs come from the United States or
elsewhere. Maybe the NHL would never be in the United States
and maybe we would not have t he NBA coming to Canada now.
There is a contradiction the member is espousing but obviously
does not see when he talks about protectionism and in the same
sentence talks about the global economy and how we must
compete. I am wondering if the member could again try to explain
to the House the reconciliation of what he is saying.
(1550 )
Mr. Graham: Mr. Speaker, there is an American conservative
philosopher we may have seen on television, George Will. He has
often said that free trade ranks somewhere between Christianity
and jogging as an item which is much talked about but little
practised.
I suggest to the hon. member that if he looks at other nations and
at other countries he will find they too seek to protect their cultural
industries for the very reason which I urged on him today. Please do
not take me as being a protectionist. I am not some sort of Luddite
who says we should build up a wall and not let in U.S. television
programs. We know technology will make all of that totally and
utterly irrelevant. It would be ridiculous to try to do that.
Given that technology is driving more open borders and more
access, we should not shut other things out. It is all the more reason
to ensure that at least our local industries are operating on a level
playing field. That is all we are asking. That is all this measure
seeks to do. This measure is not trying to erect some enormous
wall. All the other things will still come in. What this measure is
seeking to do is to ensure that this frail industry we have in Canada
has sufficient financial means that when the bottom line is there it
will continue to survive. The bottom line for it is finance, but the
bottom line for us as a country is survival. That is why I am in
favour of the bill.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his answer.
However there is still a contradiction and I was wondering if he
could clarify it further.
The government is planning on introducing legislation regarding
neighbouring rights. Here is legislation which will affect an
industry in Canada, the broadcast industry, which is in severe
trouble. It is losing millions of dollars a year and yet the
government has plans to tax that industry. How can it justify that
when it will look after another industry? There is a protectionist
attitude toward one industry and yet there is a failing industry in
Canada, the radio broadcasting industry, and the government will
do nothing except increase its taxes.
Mr. Graham: Mr. Speaker, in the short time remaining I am not
able to give an extensive answer to the hon. member's question.
However, the member well knows that what seems on the surface a
contradiction in public policy often reflects that different situations
call for different measures.
To suggest the magazine industry is in all respects exactly the
same as the broadcasting industry would be wrong. We have
learned through watching what takes place at the heritage
committee that with the new information highway the print media,
books, film, radio and television all require quite different
solutions. However, ultimately it is the same principle, to guarantee
a healthy industry in Canada. That is the principle by which the
government operates. We want a healthy industry, whether
broadcasting, books or magazines. To get that healthy industry we
will have to adopt different measures in different fields. That is the
reason for the difference.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
(1555)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The government whip has
informed the House the vote on Bill C-103 will take place at 6 p.m.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-93, an act to amend the Cultural Property Export
and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
14826
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce, at second
reading, a bill which seeks to allow appeals of decisions made by
the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board.
The Cultural Property Export and Import Act was proclaimed in
1977 to ensure the conservation, in Canada, of important objects
which are part of our movable cultural heritage. To that end, the act
provides export controls, as well as tax incentives to encourage the
donation of cultural objects to designated museums, archives and
libraries in Canada.
Moreover, the act established the Canadian Cultural Property
Export Review Board, whose mandate includes three major
responsibilities: to hear appeals filed when an application for an
export permit is rejected; to determine whether cultural property
given or sold to a designated Canadian institution is of outstanding
significance or of national importance; and, to determine the fair
market value of certified cultural property.
The fair market value of certified cultural property can be
eligible for a tax credit, just like a charitable gift. However, unlike
in the case of a charitable gift, the eligible amount is not limited to
20 per cent of the net income. Moreover, any capital gain realized
following such a gift is exempt from the capital gain tax.
From 1977 to 1991, the board only had a mandate to hear appeals
related to the rejection of an application for an export permit, and
to determine whether cultural property was of outstanding
significance or of national importance.
(1600)
In 1991 responsibility for determining fair market value of
cultural property was transferred from Revenue Canada Taxation to
the Board. At that time, there was no provision for appealing Board
decisions in this connection. Thus the right of appeal provided by
the Income Tax Act was inadvertently lost.
The number of gifts of cultural property has increased constantly
since 1991 and the Board received a record number of requests for
the 1994-1995 fiscal year.
In performing this new function, the Board carefully examines
the fair market value proposed for a gift. In the majority of cases, it
accepts as the fair market value the amount indicated in evaluations
made in good faith by at least two independent assessors and
obtained by the recipient institution.
If the Board requires additional information, the recipient
institution may seek another opinion, or in certain cases the Board
itself may have an assessment done by Canadian or foreign experts.
After it receives this information and approves the proposed
amount, the Board issues a tax certificate for the cultural property
in question for the amount established.
In approximately 10 per cent of cases between 1991 and 1994, or
some 150 cases annually, the Board determined that the monetary
value of the gift was lower than the evaluations accompanying the
application.
In conformity with the current provisions of the Act, if
additional information becomes available, the applicant may
request that the Board redetermine the fair market value of the gift.
If the Board does not change its initial assessment, the applicant
will then have no further avenue of appeal.
[English]
Donors in custodial institutions have complained about the lack
of an appeal process. In the interest of natural justice, they have
suggested that donations to institutions might decline if it is not
possible to appeal review board decisions.
In 1993 the former department of communications hired KPMG
Peat Marwick Thorne to undertake an independent assessment of
the needs for an appeal of determinations of the review board.
During this study using professionals, art dealers, donors,
collectors of cultural property and members of the review board
were interviewed about the need for an appeal. Agreement was
unanimous: an appeal process should be established.
As a result in June 1993 it was announced that the Cultural
Property Export and Import Act would be amended to allow donors
of cultural property to appeal determinations of the review board to
the Tax Court of Canada, a right that had been in place before 1990.
At the same time it was announced that amendments would also
be included to extend the circumstances under which donors would
be able to request determinations by the review board. Donors,
institutions and some professional associations such as the
Canadian Museums Association have advised me that they
continue to believe it is essential that there be an appeal of the
review board's determinations.
It is expected that the expanded circumstances whereby the
review board can redetermine fair market value will mean that the
donor and the review board will be able to come to an agreement
about value. It is expected that this will significantly limit the
number of appeals to the Tax Court of Canada.
(1605 )
The question of who is eligible to request a redetermination of
fair market value has been the subject of some discussion with the
Department of Finance. The legislation states that either the donor
or the applicant can request a redetermination while only the donor
can appeal to the tax court.
These proposed amendments will benefit donors, museums,
archives, libraries and art galleries throughout Canada. While
donors do receive a tax credit, their donations enrich public
collections for the enjoyment and education of all Canadians. This
program is open to all. Many important objects of Canadiana have
been donated by individuals from every sector of society, gems of
14827
history, heritage and culture that may have been in their families
for generations.
In conclusion, the tax incentives for donations of cultural
property continue to enrich public collections. They ensure that
objects which might otherwise be lost to Canada are retained here
for the benefit of all Canadians.
I also believe that the establishment of an appeal process is
sufficiently important that we will be reallocating resources within
the department of heritage to ensure that it will function
effectively. The establishment of an appeal of determinations by
the Canadian cultural property export review board is in fact only
the reinstatement of the right of appeal that was lost in 1990.
This legislation will help to ensure that Canadians do not lose the
evidence of their heritage. I would ask for support of this initiative
which will strengthen legislation that has been instrumental in
preserving our national heritage.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it will be a pleasure for the Bloc Quebecois to support the
bill tabled by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We think it is
extremely important for this bill, whose purpose is to amend the
Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and
the Tax Court of Canada Act, to be passed as soon as possible.
The only point I would like to make as opposition critic is-and
speaking of bureaucracy, I think this is a good example-that back
in 1991, it seems that after the legislation was adopted, they
realized, at least that is what I was told, that through an unfortunate
oversight they forgot to include the right to appeal. It seems to me
that at the time, the government should have turned around and
said: ``Listen, we forgot something. We will immediately amend
the legislation we just adopted to correct this oversight''.
Fortunately, four years later-and I hope we will have time to
finish the process-it will be possible to adopt the legislation and
correct this oversight, to ensure that Canadian cultural property
remains in Canada. There is a weak spot in this legislation, an
omission, and we would have liked to see stricter controls on the
export of cultural property.
I once saw a television program that provided clear evidence that
many items of Canadian cultural property are readily passed across
the border between Canada and the United States. It seems that
controls are so lax this is not a problem.
I think it is important to remember that the right of appeal is a
fundamental right. If someone makes a decision, he must have the
right to appeal, the right to be heard if he is not satisfied with that
decision.
(1610)
That is exactly what is happening here. You donate something,
its fair market value is assessed, you are not satisfied, and you
appeal to the board which can then decide to make certain changes.
If you are still not satisfied with the board's decision, you have a
second chance to appeal, this time to the Tax Court of Canada.
I think it was an excellent decision in 1991 to take the
responsibility for this decision away from Revenue Canada, since
the board has the real expertise. The people there are
knowledgeable about the value of cultural property. They are
experts, so it is much easier for them to determine the value.
I think the minister's speech was very clear. The Bloc is prepared
to support this legislation, which is very technical and is based on a
natural right. This is a bill the Bloc can go along with because its
purpose is to correct an oversight, the kind of technical legislation
we have become accustomed to getting from the Minister of
Canadian Heritage. In fact, I would like to see the minister
introduce fundamental legislation on Canadian policy, and we are
really waiting for the new copyright act. I am launching one more
appeal in this House.
However, it is not my intention to take up too much of the time
of this House, for whatever reason, and I think that the minister
gave a very clear explanation of a technical bill. I mentioned
omissions that are of some concern to the Bloc Quebecois, but he
has our support, and that will be it for now.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to address Bill C-93. When addressing an amendment it is
important when doing research to look at the actual act and make
some judgments about whether or not the act in itself is a good
piece of legislation and whether or not it is appropriate for a
political party such as ours to support the act overall. I will touch
on the amendment and speak a little more broadly about the overall
act.
Both the minister and the hon. member who just spoke talked
about the appeal process. Previously there was an appeal process
which permitted people to go to Revenue Canada and ultimately to
the tax court to get a ruling on the value of a piece of art being
donated to a recognized Canadian cultural institution. We do not
have problems with that. One big concern we have with respect to
the whole issue is the potential for bureaucracy and the potential
for abuse. I want to talk about that in a little more detail.
14828
One concern we have is that there is a potential for a board
which has been appointed by a government to be very cosy with
people in the arts community. Very often they come from the arts
community. I am very concerned that we will have a situation
similar to what we have in the Canada Council today where artists
sit in judgment of other artists. It is a ``you scratch my back and
I will scratch your back'' situation. I can see some real potential
for abuse.
To be a little more specific, when appointees are passing
judgment on the historical value of papers belonging to former
prime ministers who may have appointed them to the board, there
is some real concern in my judgment about those types of things.
We have to be mindful of this and ensure there are processes in
place so that people are not caught in a conflict of interest position.
I know my hon. friend from Okanagan will be talking about that
a little bit later.
(1615 )
Another concern is that a lot of these things are going to end up
being appealed to the tax court. In my judgment there is very little
doubt about that. People will say: ``I am getting a raw deal'' when
they bring their work of art forward and ultimately say: ``We want
to take this on to the tax court''.
This was not something told us officially, but when we were
researching this, someone in the department told us there are 22 tax
court judges across the country but something like 6,000 cases
before the court, an astonishing number. That is a tremendous
backlog of cases for determination about the value of these various
articles. Given that backlog it may be advisable to allow this to
remain in the hands of people who are experts in this field.
I want to talk a little bit more about the actual tax credit system
itself. This is an area in which I have grave concerns. This is a tax
loophole that definitely benefits wealthy Canadians more than
anyone else. In the last budget the government talked very
enthusiastically about the need for tax fairness.
I would argue very few ordinary Canadians are going to be able
to take advantage of this legislation. Somebody who is a
subsistence hunter in northern Canada, a wheat farmer in
Saskatchewan or somebody who works in the coal mines in Glace
Bay is not going to be able to take advantage of this loophole. The
people who are going to take advantage of it are going to be the
crème de la crème, the top 1 per cent of income earners. If anyone
does not need a tax loophole it is them.
I would encourage the government, when it is engaging in this
rhetoric about the need for tax fairness, to think about that for a
little while. Not only does this legislation reward them in so far as
they are the ones who are most likely to have the important pieces
of art that institutions want, but it rewards them in how it has
skewed the tax system for them.
Let me give some detail on that. It is amazing. In fact when I
read it I could not believe it. Right now the department issues about
$60 million in tax credits every year through this legislation. It
works like this. If something is donated to one of these institutions
the tax credit is far greater than is available for any other type of
charity in the country. In fact, normally if you donate to the food
bank you can get a tax credit up to 20 per cent of your income. That
does not apply to people who are making cultural donations. They
can get a tax credit for all of their income. They can carry the tax
credit forward into years down the road so that it can be applied
against income.
It is an amazingly lucrative way of avoiding paying taxes for the
wealthiest of Canadians. If one has an income of several hundred
thousand dollars and gets a tax credit through the cultural export
review board for $300,000 one will pay no tax. To me that is
absolutely ridiculous. I wish the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood was here.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): May I have the House's
attention. I want to caution members not to make reference to the
absence of members in the Chamber. I do concede there was no
deliberate intent but certainly it is worthy of mention as we
continue debate.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. The hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood has campaigned long and hard in the
Liberal Party for a flat tax system that gets rid of the very type of
loopholes that wealthy Canadians are taking advantage of today
through this legislation.
(1620 )
Lately the Reform Party has talked long and hard about the need
to have legislation that treats everybody fairly. Reformers believe
in equity and this is very inequitable legislation. I really do have a
tremendous problem with its essence which is special treatment for
people who donate these objects of art. That is of great concerns.
I challenge the government to review this matter and to ask
itself, in its heart of hearts, if this is really fair. I am sure on
reflection members across the way who in good conscience stand in
the House and tell us that they do not like to see privilege go to
wealthy Canadians, if they understood the essence of this bill they
would have a tremendous problem with it. That is one of the things
that concerns me greatly about this legislation.
Our party views this as Robin Hood in reverse. It is not only that
wealthy Canadians are getting a tremendous tax advantage here. It
is the lack of revenue that is created by the $60 million in tax
credits. It means that when taxpayers have to pay for things the
government views as priorities, average Canadians have to be taxed
to a greater extent in order to bring that revenue in. In a day and
age when the talk is about cutting social programs, reforming UI
14829
and possibly looking at pensions for seniors, that $60 million
would be extremely valuable.
I will be moving a motion in just a moment on the need to bring
this type of legislation in line with what currently exists in the
income tax system. Ultimately Reformers would like to see a flat
tax implemented which would get rid of these types of abuses and
privileges for the wealthiest of wealthy Canadians.
I conclude by saying that I recognize that wealthy people are
discriminated against in this country. Being wealthy is quite a
burden. People are not protected in the Canadian Human Rights
Act for being wealthy. Wealthy people are not protected under Bill
C-41, the legislation that extended protection in the justice system
to people based on certain categories. I do not believe wealthy
people are protected in employment equity legislation either.
I appreciate that wealthy people have a tremendous burden to
bear. I appreciate that sometimes people say snide things about
them behind their backs and talk about them as though they are
better than rest of us. I can see that is a large concern, but I do not
know that we have to go so far to correct that abuse and that
inequity as to give them the $60 million in tax credits every year.
I am going to conclude by moving a motion. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``that''
and substituting the following therefor:
This House declines to give second reading to Bill C-93, an act to amend the
Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court
of Canada Act, since it fails to address the issue of the burden the tax credit
system places on middle class taxpayers who are asked to pay for a potentially
endless stream of donations of questionable cultural and artistic value claimed
by wealthy Canadians.
(1625 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The amendment is in order.
Debate is now on the amendment.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have seen an
example of the shallowness of the debate by the Reform Party.
When people look back on the Reform record they will find
Spanish eyes on the turbot, green eyes on unity and closed eyes on
the cultural industry at large.
The Cultural Property Export and Import Act ensures the
preservation in Canada of our heritage in movable cultural
property. Through the combined provisions of export controls,
grants and tax incentives for donations to designated Canadian
custodial institutions, the legislation has been highly successful in
enriching the collections of public institutions and thereby
providing Canadians access to their heritage.
[Translation]
The legislation also established the Canadian Cultural Property
Export Review Board and defined its mandate. From 1977 to 1991,
the Board's mandate was to hear appeals in the case of denied
export permits and to determine whether the cultural property
given or sold to designated institutions met the criteria of
``outstanding significance and national importance'' contained in
the legislation.
In 1991, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act and the
Income Tax Act were amended in order to transfer responsibility
for determining the fair market value of certificated cultural
property from Revenue Canada to the Review Board.
There was no provision, however, for appeal of decisions by the
Review Board, and the right to appeal under the Income Tax Act
was lost.
[English]
The need for an appeal process was identified and acknowledged
in 1993 following widespread consultation with custodial
institutions, donors of cultural property, dealers in art and antiques
and members of the review board. The museum community is
convinced that an appeal is necessary to ensure that donors will be
confident their donations will receive a fair hearing.
By establishing the right of appeal, potential donors will be
assured that if they are dissatisfied with a review board
determination they will have recourse to the Tax Court of Canada.
With the concurrence of the Tax Court of Canada the appeal to the
tax court has been made retroactive to January 1992, thereby
providing all donors who have made a gift since the right to appeal
was lost and who wish to pursue an appeal with both the
opportunity and the legal right to do so.
[Translation]
The bill also covers situations in which donors may ask the
Review Board to reconsider its initial decision. The increase in the
number of situations in which the Review Board may redetermine
the value of a gift will provide donors not wanting to spend the
money involved in an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada with an
opportunity for a new hearing on the circumstances surrounding
the gift and the determination of its value by the Board. This
approach will mean that most of the applications for appeal will be
handled directly by the Review Board, eliminating the need for
court proceedings and thus making the process accessible to all.
(1630)
It will also ensure that any disagreement on fair market value is
discussed by experts in this highly specialized field. Applications
for redetermination made to the Review Board will be studied in
depth by members of the Board and other experts as necessary.
14830
[English]
The provision for two appeal processes is also cost efficient
because it is anticipated that the majority of appeals will be
resolved directly between the donor and the review board and will
not necessitate a formal appeal to the Tax Court of Canada. In a
time when we are all concerned with reducing government
spending, the ability to resolve differences of opinion about fair
market value with an existing organization, the review board,
whose members serve on a part time basis, will result in savings of
both time and money.
[Translation]
The review board is an agency operating at arm's length from the
Department of Canadian Heritage and it is resolutely in favour of
establishing a procedure whereby one could appeal its
determinations regarding fair market value. The review board is
made up of specialists in museology, collectors or traders, who are
well aware of the difficulties custodial institutions and donors of
cultural property have encountered because there was no appeal
procedure. The determination of the fair market value is currently
done and will continue to be done by individuals who are skilled in
various areas relating to cultural property and very active on the
markets where this property is sold.
[English]
The determination of the fair market value of any object and
particularly cultural property involves an element of subjectivity
that can lead to disagreement. These disagreements occurred when
the responsibility for determining fair market value resided with
Revenue Canada. There have been disagreements among the
experts in the time since the review board has assumed this
responsibility. This debate is both healthy and inevitable when
dealing with often unique material. An open and transparent
process at the time the review board determines and if necessary
redetermines the fair market value of cultural property is essential.
The right to pursue the matter in the courts if no resolution can
be found is consistent with both the Canadian legal system and the
concept of natural justice.
[Translation]
The staff of designated institutions argued that the absence of
any appeal procedure caused the number of donations made by
collectors to drop. All designated institutions would therefore
welcome the implementation of such a procedure, since it would
foster an increase in donations while at the same time eliminating
the potential for tension in dealings between donors, custodial
institutions and the review board.
[English]
Donors of cultural property have also reacted positively to the
introduction of the bill, as they believe that it removes a major
deterrent to donating. Any perceived denials of natural justice
have been resolved, as donors will now be able to appeal to the tax
court if they disagree with the review board's determination of fair
market value.
There is also strong professional support for these amendments
in the communities that are most affected by the availability of tax
credits for donations of cultural property. The Canadian Museum
Association and the Canadian Art Museum Directors Association
have expressed strong support for the bill and the establishment of
an appeal process. Both associations, whose members include
museums and art gallery personnel from across Canada, have
issued policy statements in support of the establishment of an
appeal process.
These amendments to the Cultural Property Export and Import
Act to create an appeal process to the Tax Court of Canada of
decisions of the review board should not be viewed as a shift in
government policy, nor should they be interpreted to be a reflection
on the work or credibility of the Canadian Cultural Property Export
Review Board. Instead the bill must be recognized for what it is:
the reinstatement of a right to appeal that was lost in 1991 when
responsibility for determining the fair market value of certified
cultural property was transferred from Revenue Canada to the
Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board.
(1635 )
The amendments to the Cultural Property Export and Import
Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act
contained in the bill will ensure the continued preservation of our
heritage in movable cultural property. The appeal process will
ensure continued confidence in the donation system and will in turn
lead to an increase in donations to museums, art galleries, archives
and libraries.
This bill also ensures that there will be public confidence in the
fairness of the procedures of the review board and that there is no
denial of natural justice. Furthermore, a right of appeal that was
lost in 1991 when responsibility for determining fair market value
was transferred to the review board will be restored.
These amendments will also remove any obstacles, real or
perceived, to making donations to Canadian custodial institutions.
Through these donations all Canadians will benefit, as we will be
ensured of the continued preservation and access to Canada's
heritage in movable cultural property.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member.
What we are seeing today in the House of Commons is the
hypocrisy of the Liberal government. It talks of fair taxation. It has
the nerve and the audacity to talk of fair taxation. Is the bill before
us fair?
14831
It is not just donated works of art that are eligible for the tax
credits; it can be anything that is deemed to be of outstanding
significance and national importance. For instance, prominent
retired politicians such as Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Turner and Mr.
Mulroney have all donated their personal papers to the National
Archives in return for very high tax credits. It will amount to
hundreds of thousands of dollars over many years. Who is it being
funded by? It is being funded by the taxpayers of Canada.
Fair taxation? Is it fair that this will be used by former prime
ministers and people the government deems important, but not by
the dual income family that is having a difficult time making ends
meet? Is it fair tax policy when something like this will be used
mainly by the extremely wealthy in Canada and not by the disabled
worker who is on a very low income or by the mother of two who is
struggling to survive?
What we are seeing today is the hypocrisy of the government,
which in its last budget told Canadians that there would be a tax
increase for those mothers who will have to get work to make ends
meet, to the dual income family and to the disabled person.
The government raised gasoline taxes by 1.5 cents per litre. That
hits home. That hits the average Canadian taxpayer.
What we are seeing today is a tax measure that is for the elite of
our society.
Would the hon. member like to comment on that?
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, there are so many fallacies in the
hon. member's statement that I am at a loss where to begin. Let me
try to tackle them one by one.
I am not surprised by the limitations of the member's discourse,
as his party refused an earlier briefing on Bill C-103. Had they been
briefed on that bill and this bill they would be more erudite in their
comments.
There are very few programs that are not vulnerable to abuse. We
are not going to abandon our cultural institutions because there is
one dishonest person or maybe two who might be participating in
fraud or tax schemes. However we will make every effort to
safeguard programs that have value. We are not going to paralyse
all our programs in support of the Canadian cultural industry
because of abuse to a program that has on the whole served
museums and the Canadian cultural institutions well.
(1640 )
It is important-and this is the limitation of the member's
argument-to understand that cultural property is not just paintings
and fine works of art; it extends to our natural history.
I know the hon. members of the third party really do not
appreciate our heritage and our history and would perhaps prefer to
adopt a Fahrenheit 451 policy to literature.
I remind the member that the hotels in Ottawa are packed with
people who come to see our works of art and our museums. They
are not coming here for the Reform Party. As much as they might
have delusions, there is nothing much artistic about their
arguments, as abstract as they may be.
On their attack on the wealthy, what they forget is that people
who have money do contribute and sponsor the arts. They make a
considerable contribution in that regard. The best possible
treatment a donor may receive is a refund equivalent up to 50 per
cent of the fair market value of the object or collection they are
donating.
We understand that the members of the third party would rather
see all our collections of art shipped to the United States or
elsewhere to foreign markets. However, we feel there is merit in
keeping them in this country, because Canadians appreciate them
even if members of the third party do not.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, would
the hon. parliamentary secretary acknowledge that this tax
legislation also applies to works of art that are not Canadian, that it
applies for instance to American works of art as well as Canadian
works of art?
Ms. Guarnieri: Maybe the members opposite really do not have
an appreciation for art in any form, but Canadians do not hold their
heads in the sand like ostriches. There is a world there and we
would like to have access to that world in any form and in a cultural
form as it may occur.
Is the hon. member suggesting that we build a little cocoon
around ourselves? I suspect that the hon. members have no
appreciation for anything of a cultural nature. If it were up to the
members of the Reform Party, the only place they would find
culture would be in yogurt.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
certainly appreciate the fine edge of wit spewing forth from the
other side.
The third party, as the hon. member has put it, has raised some
serious issues, not the least of which is the fact that it is the
wealthiest of the wealthy Canadians who are taking advantage of
this. This is not something that is available to everybody. She has
continually skated around that issue.
I would ask her to address this very specifically and tell us how
she can reconcile this piece of legislation with all the rhetoric of the
last budget about the need to have tax fairness.
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had opened his
mind to have a briefing from the department he would have learned
that it is not just wealthy Canadians who donate art; it is individuals
who for instance have had Canadiana in their family for
generations. These may be objects that benefit Canadians in
general to know their history. The individuals have chosen to
enrich the collection of local or national institutions, rather than
selling them.
14832
If the member wants to reduce this just to a dollar figure, they
might make more on the foreign market if they were to sell their
objects of art.
(1645 )
I can list a countless number of objects that have been donated to
museums. What I might suggest is that the member might benefit
from a little trip to the museum to get a fuller education.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as the
hon. parliamentary secretary knows, there is a warehouse full of
alleged art which used to belong to the art bank. This art is going to
sit there in storage probably for years upon years upon years. The
fact is that every year the amount of tax credits that are requested
and granted goes up, not down as both the minister and the
parliamentary secretary have suggested.
Given this, does it not make sense that there should be some kind
of a limit placed upon the amount of available tax credits? We
would then not ding people so strongly in the middle class because
we are having to pay for the wealthiest Canadians. Also, where are
we going to store all this stuff? We already have one warehouse
full. I am wondering what the parliamentary secretary is proposing
to do with the rest of it.
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, once again the question indicates
the ignorance of the third party. If we have objects of art that are
worth seeing, I think we will find a place to put them so that
Canadians can benefit.
Members of the third party really thrive on misinformation. For
instance, the same member mentioned that the annual value of
certified cultural property is approximately $60 million. That was
the figure he cited. What he did not tell Canadians is that the results
in foregone revenue are approximately $25 million to $30 million
annually.
Having said that and since we know the Reform Party never tells
the whole story, it is the position of this government that we do not
like to see a situation where flaws in the tax act cause us to lose
precious works of art.
Notwithstanding the fact that members of the third party feel that
natural justice should be tossed out the window, I think even with
the limitations that the members of the third party have shown
themselves to have today, I believe Canadians will agree with me
that we do not want headlines such as: ``Canada loses art donation
due to tax rule hang-up''. I think most Canadians would not want to
see situations like that occur because of a housekeeping matter,
because of a right that was lost as an oversight, even if members of
the third party do not believe in natural justice.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to address Bill C-93 and also speak as to why
I believe the amendment put forward by my colleague should go
through.
Government members talk of abuse. This government has been
full of abuse since it has been here. It has never stopped. They have
lived off the backs of the taxpayers since day one. They have never
changed. They said when they came to power how they would
change things, how they would be different from the
Conservatives. They are now called the con-lib party because there
is no difference; they are in bed together and have been for a long
time.
When the hon. member from across the way says there was no
abuse in the system, let us look at what the Canadian public-
Ms. Guarnieri: I never said that. Do not misrepresent.
Mr. Stinson: Misrepresent. I am afraid I cannot do that with
you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I know colleagues obviously
want to debate the issue, but I would remind the House to direct
their interventions through the Chair.
Mr. Stinson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Let us look at the Gazette
where it says: ``Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney will find
out this week of his approval for a tax break for donating his
papers. Members of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review
Board will decide whether to accept an approval of the value of the
papers which date from before Mulroney was Prime Minister in
1984''. It goes on to state that is unlikely Canadians will ever find
out what the deduction is worth to him, the former Prime Minister.
This appraised value of the papers is private but could eventually
amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Do we not think the
public has a right to know what they are paying and giving up for
the so-called works of art or donated papers?
(1650)
Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau also received a tax break
by declaring his papers.
In 1993-94 the archives staff under Michael Swift, assistant
national archivist, completed organizing two sets of papers for
Prime Minister Mulroney. The first set, which will take up to 15
metres of shelf space, covered Mulroney's time as a Montreal
lawyer and businessman in the 1970s and 1980s. I do not think the
Canadian taxpayers, who pay for the system, really care. If they
had really cared they probably would have kept him in office, but
here we go on and on.
I listened to the hon. member across the way talk about Canadian
culture and heritage. Back in the late 1800s there was a gentleman
who lived in Aspen Grove, British Columbia. They nicknamed him
the Grey Fox. The Grey Fox is part of our history. He robbed banks
and stage coaches and was one of Canada's great train robbers. Yes,
I think maybe he was one of the first Liberals of the day but at least
he had the common sense to use a mask. Today we see what I call
14833
the great Canadian tax grab right off the backs of the Canadian
people.
Here is a caring, sharing government and what does it do? It
takes away the $100,000 capital gains for the working class
because they have probably already claimed it so they no longer
need it. That was the first kick. The second kick is allowing these
things to go on knowing full well that working class Canadians will
have to pick up any shortfall in the taxation system.
We can go on. The Gazette of March 24, 1995 states: ``Under the
scheme which dates back at least 20 years, a donor buys a work of
art for well below the artist's usual fee. The donor will then have
the work evaluated for four or five times the amount he or she has
paid for the work and then donate the piece to a gallery, museum or
a registered charity and write off 100 per cent of the evaluated
amount, art experts explained''.
Let us go on a little bit further: ``Rolland's Art-Transit has paid
Montreal artist Catherine Widgery 20 per cent of the usual price for
her work. `If it is $10,000 for the work, I get $2,000', she said, `but
they will still be allowed to claim that $10,000 if it is valued at that
price''.
An hon. member: That is a good deal.
Mr. Stinson: It is a win-win situation, as a Montreal artist also
says in the same article. Museums are happy to get things for free.
That raises another question.
I was brought up to believe that a gift is a gift and a gift given is
free. How do we get into a tax deduction situation for giving a free
gift? Why do we call it a gift? Only in Liberal language would this
ever be allowed. I do not know, maybe I have to look up what a gift
means but it sure has changed from the time I went to school.
(1655 )
Back to museums which are happy to get things for free. Artists
are happy because they have a bit of money in their pockets.
Everybody is happy. What is not, in the words of the writer, kosher,
is that a client is buying a work at below its value and getting the
write off for a different amount. Still, the artist added, ``I find the
whole thing a little bit fishy but everybody is doing it''. Doing it the
Liberal way.
What is the difference between this government's taxation policy
and the previous government? Nothing. It is business as usual.
The Liberals hold up the red book as a great work of art. We
found out how good that work of art was in western B.C. It was in
every outhouse. We found out it was only half-ply strength and you
all know what happens when you use only half-ply strength.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This is a place of debate, but
the Speaker wishes to be involved to the extent he is able to from
the Chair. Please do not direct comments across the floor to one
another. That word ``you'' inevitably leads sometimes to another
debate which I do not think is something we really want to
entertain.
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, let us look at what the red book has
done for Alberta or Saskatchewan. They found that if they shaved it
up really fine and mixed it in with the fertilizer it helped the crops
grow. The trouble is that most of the crops turned black.
It has been a great benefit for the jobs program in Ontario and
Quebec. It has plugged every sewer system in the provinces.
We can now also look at what it has done for Atlantic Canada
and Newfoundland. It is the only fishy thing they have left down
there.
I am hoping over the course of time this does not become part of
our culture and heritage that goes into our museums.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear some fiction being put out by the
hon. member. My question is very simple. He talks about tax free
allowances for the rich and does not agree with it. I wonder if that
means he does not agree with his leader's clothing allowance given
to him by the Reform Party.
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, concerning clothing allowances, I
have not heard anybody mention the $285,000 or is it $585,000 the
Prime Minister gets for his toothbrushes. As the hon. member
knows, there is no clothing allowance. It is a figment of their
imagination, but the Liberals are good at figments of the
imagination.
Mr. McCormick: I beg your pardon. No way.
Mr. Stinson: I believe there is an expense allowance that we all
give our leaders and the Prime Minister gets far more than anybody
else. He gets a lot I understand, a whole bunch. Somehow it is
written off. I do not know how, but that is the Liberal way of
balancing things. The Liberals have a funny way of justifying one
but not the other. It is strange but if we fall into the Disneyworld of
Liberal philosophy we will find that Mickey Mouse and Goofy sit
side by side. When they draw these things up it becomes a cartoon
scenario the Canadian public is just about fed up with.
(1700 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I resume the question
and comment period it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38,
to inform the House that the question to be raised to night at the
14834
time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Okanagan-Shuswap-a question which was transferred for
debate.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am certain
that not too many people will be paying for the Reform Party
cultural document.
It amazes me to hear the hon. member mention this legislation is
all for the wealthy and the rich and yet the same person turned
around and defended the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax
was purely directed to people of higher incomes. I can prove the
people who received the benefits of that deduction were the higher
income, wealthier people, the very people the Reform Party
represents in the House.
There is a little problem with arithmetic here. The bottom line is
anybody who is making a donation of, for example, $10,000 will
get a $5,000 tax credit. It costs them money. This is not some kind
of gift to the wealthy. They made a donation of their cultural
property, be that the group of seven artists or Cornelius Krieghoff,
so that it would stay in Canada and be the property of the people of
Canada. This is something the Reform Party fails to understand.
The other thing that seems striking to me is that the Reform
Party talks about getting rid of this and having a flat tax. I want to
put things in perspective. The Reform Party does not want to admit
this but the flat tax is designed to assist and help anybody who has
an income of over $200,000.
The president of the United States with all of his analysts went
through the whole concept of a flat tax years ago. He asked them to
prove to him how it would not be the major system for people with
over $200,000 income. It stands to proper reason that if we are
trying to collect x dollars from the taxation system and there is a
flat tax we will allocate taxes from the upper income groups to the
middle income earners. That is what the Reform Party would have
us believe. That is who the Reform Party is representing in the
House.
The reality is the cultural products some people have are usually
part of an estate. As part of settling that estate they give a good
portion of these artefacts to the government through the museum
system. These are things our museums would not be able to
acquire. It is not a loophole, it is an incentive to keep those
products in Canada.
How can he defend the capital gains tax system but not this
system and how can he defend a flat tax system but not this system?
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I know it is hard for the hon. member
to understand that under capital gains the $100,000 is for the small
investor, the person who tries to put a little aside to get ahead
because they know darn well with what is happening underneath
the government there will be nothing there for their old age unless
they look after themselves. The government will take it all away
from them anyway while its members make sure their pensions are
well kept and they are well fed before they think about the poor
average working class person. It is a shame.
When the member asks about capital gains at the $100,000 level
it creates investments. It gives the Canadian working people a
chance to get ahead where the government cannot weave and sneak
in between and take it from their bank accounts, which this
government is so very good at.
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, really. The everyday worker, the
plumber, the electrician? In my riding we have General Motors
workers. I did these people's tax returns for years and I do not ever
remember them claiming a capital gains tax exemption. Be serious.
Level with the people.
(1705)
These people are supporting the professional class, lawyers,
doctors and accountants. That is who they are talking about. They
are not talking about the everyday person in the street.
Will the hon. member please tell us who he thinks is claiming the
$100,000 capital gains tax exemption?
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I can well tell him who worked
toward getting the $100,000. It was the person who invested in the
nickel and penny shares in the stock exchange who tried to keep the
exploration companies going. It was the person who tried to put
something away so they could claim it to further their children's
education.
The hon. member maybe has never dealt with the small business
people in Canada. If he had problems helping people to do their tax
returns maybe he should look at changing the policies he is so hard
set on keeping so he can keep people like that working.
Maybe that is a question the hon. member might like to answer.
Why has he not come up with some kind of a change in the
program? Why is it always a Conservative-Liberal program or a
Con-Lib policy that we go along with? We have bunk beds, Bloc
beds and now Con-Lib beds.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have enjoyed the debate this afternoon. It indicates a
philosophical difference between the Liberals and those people in
the Reform Party. I suppose that is no surprise.
I have a copy of the little book of reform. This is the gospel
according to the leader of the Reform Party. Let me read a bit from
the booklet. From page 23: ``The Reform Party supports the
responsibility of the state to promote, preserve and enhance the
national culture''. I wonder if the hon. member opposite has ever
14835
read the little green book of the Reform Party. I recommend it to
the member. It is very interesting reading, provided it is not done
on an empty stomach. Otherwise it is quite good and I highly
recommend it to the member.
The Reform Party supports the responsibility of the state to
promote, preserve and enhance the national culture. Let us
remember what we are doing today. We are adopting a bill which in
a small way does precisely that. One would think the Reform Party
would be saying it is about time the government did something it
recommended in its handbook.
No, of course not. What happened is there are Reform members
who did not read the little green book and they obviously do not
know we are trying to do what they advocated.
The Reform Party seems to believe the cultural industry benefits
only rich people. Let us talk about the whole industry of museums
and cultural industries generally. Two of the largest cities in the
world thrive and make as their main business culture: Paris and
London. Those fortunate enough to have see the Louvre, I believe
the second largest museum in the world, will agree it is beautiful
and almost impossible to describe. The treasures are such that it
would take weeks to see everything in it. Millions and millions of
people have seen and will see the Louvre. One could probably open
any fourth or fifth door of any building in Paris and the same would
be true of so many things there. Many people go to Paris for that
reason, because it is so lovely, because it is such a wonderful city
and because all those cultural amenities are there.
(1710)
[Translation]
Other museums are the Musée d'Orsay, which focuses on
paintings, and the Centre national d'art et de culture
Georges-Pompidou, which features modern art.
[English]
It is the same in London. I have been to the Royal Albert
museum where the Magna Carta is displayed, one of the most
important historical documents in the western world. There were
people standing to have a glimpse of the Magna Carta. They must
have been four or five abreast and a queue of them several feet deep
waiting to look at it for seconds just so they could go back home
and tell people they had seen it.
The Mona Lisa at the Louvre is the same thing. There were so
many people around it you could barely see it at all. I had the
previous misconception it was a very large painting. It is a little
painting and one has to almost fight one's way to see it. Many
people go there for no other reasons than to see that.
That is true of how many other works of art? How many people
in this city reap the benefits of that? They are not just rich people.
People visit Ottawa to see our beautiful museums. I highly
recommend the Queen's collection, although it is no longer here.
How many people travelled here from many communities, stayed
in hotels, gave tips to waiters, gave jobs to those transporting them
from the airport and so on? It has contributed to the local economy.
Culture is a business, a very big one in many cities in the world
and in our country. It is big business. It provides meaningful jobs.
That is a concept people across never raise. They think somehow
the whole cultural industry has half a dozen beneficiaries getting
rich and no one else is benefiting so that two or three artsy-fartsies
can watch this stuff. It is not like that. It is the way the Reform
Party would like to depict it to Canadians and to the House. It is a
wrong way of viewing things.
In my riding there is the Nor'Westers and Loyalist Museum in
Williamstown.
[Translation]
The Cumberland Township Museum in Cumberland and other
local museums hold historical artefacts, old documents, and so on.
Many visitors end up spending some time in the community and
supporting local businesses.
This bill applies to Canadian and other cultural property. Earlier,
a Reform member asked the hon. parliamentary secretary whether
someone who owns a foreign work of art would be eligible for this
deduction? I am asking you: What difference would this make?
If someone wanted to give Canadian taxpayers or a Canadian
museum a work by Leonardo da Vinci, would we refuse the offer?
What kind of narrow minded values are some of our colleagues
trying to convey in this House? If some valuable cultural property
was available, I think we would want it so we could enjoy it and
show it to others. And even if we looked at this from a strictly
economic point of view, we as a society would want to capitalize on
the fact that people would come from abroad to see it.
[English]
How many tourists come to this city to see these things, not just
locally, not just people from 10 miles away, but people from across
the country? They cross the border from the United States. They
come from everywhere to see some of the things we have.
(1715)
That is equally true elsewhere. My very distinguished colleague
reminds me that we are not even talking about the educational
benefit. If you bring a child to the museum and show him or her a
copy of our Constitution, a copy of the original flag proclamation
or other such artefact, there is a tremendous educational benefit as
well.
14836
We are talking about whether we should give a tax benefit to
someone who donates an object of art. What is the test? First, the
object in question has to be determined to be one that qualifies
for such a tax credit. It is not arbitrary. I cannot empty out my
desk and call it art or cultural property and get a tax credit for
it, although maybe some day the little green book of the Reform
Party could be put in a museum. However I do not think I would
get much of a tax credit.
The first test is that the object has to qualify. The second test is
what the parliamentary secretary said in her speech a while ago if
members across had been listening, which is giving a credit of 50
per cent of the market value. My other colleague from Durham is
very knowledgeable with numbers as he is a accountant. I am sure
he would agree that if you start off with that proposition the taxes
saved are a proportion of that, whether it is 50 per cent, 60 per cent
or whatever the number is depending on the tax bracket the person
is in.
Let us now assume a 50 per cent tax bracket. That means that if
one gives a $1,000 object one does not get $1,000 from the
taxpayers. One receives $250, assuming a 50 per cent tax bracket
working on 50 per cent of the appraised value of the original work.
That is the way I see it. If those numbers are even slightly off the
principle remains the same. It is not a matter of only rich people
getting a credit for a piece of cultural property.
[Translation]
Let us not forget that the Reform Party, despite the comments
made by some of its members today, launched its last election
campaign by calling for the promotion, the furthering of Canadian
culture. I am totally confused. I must tell you that I am having
difficulty in following the logic used by Reform members. Their
thoughts and actions seem to lack coherence. What are these
objects they are talking about?
[English]
Some members across have alluded to the fact that former Prime
Ministers gave their personal papers. Let us look back in history.
Let us not measure things as they are now. I am not here to defend
Brian Mulroney. I probably criticized him more than all the MPs
across put together. However, that is not the point here today. The
point is not whether I happen to agree with that person's policy at
the time he was the Prime Minister. I think the verdict is already
out on that one. Read Stevie Cameron's book and you will find out
in case you are still in doubt.
The point is whether there is value to these objects. That is
determined by an independent panel, not by members of this House
and least of all by political opponents such as I. It is looked at
historically. As I said earlier today speaking on another bill, if we
were to evaluate today whether the documents of Sir John A.
Macdonald are of historical value we would be hard pressed to find
people who do not think they are. They are obviously very
significant. Probably three years after he left office the discussion
on the issue would have been a little different. The same applies for
many other people.
Some time ago the Hudson's Bay Company gave some important
historical documents of that very old business which was founded
in the 17th century. For a period of time that company owned part
of what is our country today. It was the physical owners of the land,
a quasi government of its own with administrative powers, et
cetera. Some of these documents have been given to the country.
(1720)
I suppose there were times in the past when a trapper who
brought things to be exchanged at the Hudson's Bay store did not
get what he considered to be the proper value. He would not have
thought much about the cultural value of the documents that
belonged to a company that did not give him what his material was
worth. But that was measured in the contemporary. It is not
necessarily the way in which we can measure objects of value for
the future.
[Translation]
Our museums across the country can avail themselves of certain
tax measures to take advantage of donations made to them. That is
right, sometimes rich people donate works. It is great when they do
so. This way, the rest of us get to see these works, because only the
rich can afford to have a private collection at home. I will not see
them often myself, but if these people can give some away, that is
just fine.
In our society, there are also people who own works of art, say a
painting bought some 30 or 50 years ago by a relative, and who
now want to donate it to society in exchange for a tax benefit. What
is wrong with that?
I would like to put forward a final argument: Without these
measures, would it be possible for individuals richer than myself
and many of our fellow citizens to buy this cultural property and
put it in their private collections, where it will be impossible for the
rest of us to see and appreciate it? I urge Reform Party members to
think about this.
[English]
This measure can, has been and will be beneficial for all
Canadians. However I do not feel the policy of the Reform Party is
reasonable in its approach. Cultural property that is sometimes
given to the public and to museums could very well end up in the
hands of very small groups and would be lost to the rest of us.
I am reminded that parts of the Lord Beaverbrook collection, for
instance, were given through tax credits. I do not know whether
colleagues from the Reform Party have ever been to the
Beaverbrook Museum in Fredericton. I highly recommend it if they
have not. They would see the extent of the collection and how
precious
14837
it is to have that as a property of the people of Canada. Again, one
has to see it to appreciate it.
The Ontario government through cultural agencies owns the
McMichael collection in Kleinburg. No doubt a portion of those
works were acquired utilizing devices such as this.
Notwithstanding tax credits, which I am not too crazy about
either, I am happy to see those works stay here for the Canadian
public to see rather than in private collections in another country
such as the United States or elsewhere, where people are either
richer or have the advantage of a tax credit and can acquire
property which I hope will stay here for the benefit of all
Canadians.
(1725 )
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed hearing the hon. member's intervention. He talked about
the Beaverbrook museum in Fredericton. I have not been there but I
have been to the National Gallery. I have seen what has purchased,
either through tax credits or directly with cash, which is the way I
would prefer to see it done because it is a lot more transparent and
you can hold people accountable that way.
One of the things my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin pointed out
was a display that hangs from the ceiling there. It is a toilet hanging
from the ceiling of the National Gallery. Is that not a wonderful
purchase by the people of Canada? I wonder how many tax credits
we handed out for that? Perfect. Does that not speak volumes about
state funded art? It speaks volumes, Mr. Speaker.
I walked into a room at the National Gallery where in one corner
are Brillo pads stacked to the ceiling. That is art. That is
unbelievable.
I walked into another room where I thought they were
undergoing renovations because there was a bunch of underlay
lying on the floor. Do you know what, that was the display. Two
hundred and fifty-six pieces of felt is what it is called.
I have a picture sitting on my desk of a display at the National
Gallery. It is a large woman reading a newspaper and she has got a
wig on and all of that sort of thing. According to the people at the
National Gallery who were telling people about these displays,
someone was paid $750,000 for what in my judgment is an
absolutely ridiculous piece of junk.
When we talk about the government's prescient ability to choose
art with other people's money let us go and take a wander through
the National Gallery and find out just how good it is at this.
The hon. member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell pointed
to Reform's policy on culture. Let me address that. Our party feels
very strongly that the federal government does have a role, but we
also feel that these institutions have to be accountable. I also
remind the hon. member that these things have to be put in context.
Reformers also believe in a flat tax system. We believe that we
cannot be going around giving wealthy people a special privilege.
That is ridiculous. It is even more pronounced, more ridiculous in
this day and age when middle income Canadians are being
squeezed so dramatically.
I would ask the hon. member to put these things in context. I
would much rather see private individuals, private groups, lower
levels of government like municipalities and provinces run the
museums and galleries to the greatest degree possible because they
are a lot more accountable. When it is all funded through the
federal government and people who are appointed by the federal
government make the selections, they are absolutely
unaccountable.
Has the hon. member gone through the National Gallery at any
time in the recent past and seen some of these ridiculous, what can
only be described as abuses, this mocking of taxpayers which is
exactly what it is. Somehow we feel we have to support this counter
culture, the people who mock a lot of the ideals that really enabled
them to have freedom of expression. They mock us and we still
give them money.
Has the hon. member seen this lately and how he can justify the
government being involved in purchasing that kind of garbage?
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon.
member and have come to the conclusion that Reform Party
politics has no artistic value.
The member across said that he prefers to see the purchase of art
for cash rather than tax cuts. That was in his first or second line. Let
us calculate that mathematically. The hon. member for Durham is
an expert with numbers and so are a couple of other members of the
Liberal caucus who are accountants. They know these things far
better than I.
If you start off with the proposition that a work of art valued at
$1,000 gives you a credit for 50 per cent of the value, which is $500
and you are in the 50 per cent tax bracket which is $250, it costs the
government $250 to get a $1,000 item.
He prefers to pay $1,000 rather than $250. I think that is Reform
math. I want no part of it and I do not think Canadians do either.
(1730 )
The art critic for the Reform Party wanted to tell us that a
particular work of art at the national gallery in his view was
ridiculous or that he did not like it. That may be so. I do not pretend
to understand everything in a museum of modern art any place, not
just this place. I have been to the centre Georges Pompidou. I do
not understand some objects there either. However, that is neither
here nor there.
14838
The issue is whether the museum should have bought that work
of art. I do not even know if the member across knows who owns
the work of art in question. He assumes everything in there
belonged to the Canadian public through our tax system. That is
not necessarily how it was acquired. It does not necessarily belong
to the museum. It could belong to another museum but here on
a travelling exhibition.
I ask the member to take a little more time to go to the
museum-this or any other one-speak to the curator and others
and learn a little about how these things work.
I have never seen the object in question. Perhaps I would not like
it either, which is a different issue. I do not even know who owns
the item in question. Judging from the comments of the member in
his speech I would bet a dollar to a penny he has not asked the
curator of the museum who owns the piece in question.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I just
finished speaking on the telephone to an 86-year old constituent in
my riding who has been watching some of the debate this
afternoon. You will have to excuse me, Mr. Speaker, because he
said to me: ``What the hell are you politicians doing over there
wasting my money?''
The members opposite can wax eloquent about all the wonderful
things they want to do with other peoples' money. It is other
peoples' money. The majority of Canadians, whether watching this
or reading about it in the newspaper, know it is their money. They
are getting s bit fed up with this place which is not a travelling
museum but a stationary museum wasting their money.
I get plenty of calls like the one I just had. I know that now at
least my constituent will know I am trying to do something to
change that system which is a disgrace. The sooner the other side
recognizes it, the better.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the disgrace is in the quality of the
remarks I have just heard.
The member referred to a stationary museum. I have never been
inside the Reform Party caucus so I cannot comment on that.
Perhaps the member is right to that extent. We all know dinosaurs
are usually found in museums. To that extent perhaps he is correct.
Concerning the issue, it is a serious one. The member across may
not think cultural property is important to anyone. He has a right to
think that. I think he is wrong. The heritage of this country is worth
preserving. That heritage may involve the community museum we
have in Williamstown in the great riding of
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the Nor'Westers and Loyalist
museum where people like Simon Fraser, Alexander Mackenzie
and others worked and lived, then eventually went on to explore the
great Canadian west. All of these things are important. Perhaps the
member across does not think so. Perhaps he does not have an
appreciation for these things which is his right. I do not contest
that.
If he says those things, historical objects, works of art, our whole
heritage and past are worth nothing, then he has a right to think
that. However, I remind him of the famous words of George
Santayana that those of us who do not remember history run at least
the risk of repeating it.
(1735 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise this afternoon and participate in this debate on Bill
C-93, an act to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act,
the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.
What we are talking about is tax fairness. Fairness is something
all Canadians are really looking for today, fairness in their tax
system. I hear members opposite talking about the red book and
talking about the green book. The only book that is really important
and the one we are concerned about for Canadians is the bank book.
Canadian bank books are paying for all these open ended and over
generous tax credits. We are talking about $60 million in tax
credits; $60 million in unfairness that is actually not in the system
at the moment.
I am a Rotarian and Rotarians have a four way test. These tests
apply to all the things we do and say. One of those tests is: Is it fair
to all concerned? Bill C-93 misses the mark about being fair to all
concerned by a very wide margin. It is unfair to the average income
Canadian taxpayer who is overtaxed, has no paintings or sculptures
in his or her home and he or she is the least able to pay the tax
burden he or she is presently under.
It does benefit the very wealthy, the very rich in our society who
have the art works and who have the sculptures and who have the
ability to pay. Here we are subsidizing them. Those who have the
sculptures, those who have the art works also have the bucks and
are not deserving of the overly generous tax credits we are talking
about in Bill C-93.
We should be looking for tax relief for the average taxpayer. I
hear lots on the other side about their ability to deal with numbers,
how good they are with numbers. I wonder about that when I see
we are rushing toward bankruptcy, $550 billion to $560 billion in
federal debt, and deeper every day, and then sleep walking to
bankruptcy. I do not know where all the experts in numbers are but
they sure do not know how to balance the books very well. We are
still spending in excess of $35 billion more than we are taking in.
They had better reclassify their experts. They are failing the mark
there.
In Bill C-93 we are missing the mark in three areas when I talk
about fairness. Bill C-93 introduces two new levels of appeal.
There is more bureaucracy and more costs. On the second point
there are tax credits for charities that are treated differently than the
tax credits for the rich who have their works of art. That is grossly
14839
unfair. The third is it is an open ended system with tax loopholes a
mile wide for those with the money and ability to look for them.
Let us take the first one where we are introducing two new levels
of appeal. Prior to 1990 Revenue Canada decided the value. That
was the way it should have been. After the 1990 budget the
Canadian cultural export review board was brought into being with
no appeal, or at least no appeal without reason.
Today Bill C-93 adds two steps to that. We now can have an
appeal without a reason. We do not need a reason for an appeal. I
cannot understand the logic of that but we can appeal without a
reason. Perhaps someone over there can explain that to me.
Then there is an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada-more delay,
more bureaucracy and more cost. In the end we have taken it right
back to where we were in 1990 where the tax department makes the
final decision. What have we accomplished other than more delay
and more costs to the taxpayer who is footing the bill?
These appeals will escalate the cost. Take the scenario in which I
have a piece of art in my home. I would be lucky to have a piece of
art worth $1 million. I say it is worth $1 million. The review people
take a look at it and say it is only worth $.5 million. What do we do
for the next step? We go to the tax court. Judges being what they
are will say they will meet me half way and it ends up being worth
$.75 million. Who is the winner there? It is not the overtaxed
taxpayer.
(1740 )
Let us look at the tax credits to charities. The limit is 20 per cent
of net taxable income. It is money going to food banks and the
Salvation Army, money to help those really in need and we have a
limit on it. They are crying for help. They are under constraints
from the government. No, it is a 20 per cent limit. That money goes
to charities to help people really in need.
Now we look at works of art donated by the rich and the wealthy
of this community and there is no limit. The government will give
them whatever they want. It is all right. It is a blank cheque. It
makes no sense at all. It is grossly unfair. It is Liberal mathematics.
The number crunchers have come up with this and the deficit will
increase, the debt will increase and our tax burden will increase.
It is an open ended system. I do not think there are any qualifiers.
They can keep dumping art on us until the warehouses are full.
There is no regulation which say we can only take so much or we
have only so much money to put into this. It keeps increasing and
we will keep putting it into warehouses. It might eventually find its
way into museums. I would certainly hope so when we are
spending $16 million a year and it is increasing. It seems to be
acquisition for acquisition's sake.
Is this bill fair? Is Bill C-93 fair to all concerned? I am not just
talking about the artsy-fartsy; I am talking about the hard working
taxpayers who are paying for all of this art which they rarely ever
get to see. It is only fair to the top 1 per cent of our community. It is
grossly unfair to 99 per cent of our overtaxed taxpayers. It is unfair
to the charities looking for relief. They are looking for help and for
donations from Canadians. Art donations have a higher priority
with the government than does the Salvation Army. The Salvation
Army is helping those in need and those looking for assistance.
To say that if we defeat the bill it will be the end of art donations
is rubbish. They will not stop, they will continue. We are not the
ones out to destroy the cultural community, but we will not buy it
with money we do not have and give it to people who do not need
it.
If we defeat the bill it will close a very big loophole of which the
very rich in the community can take advantage. That is wrong. The
ordinary taxpayer is incensed by it and wants something done about
it.
Let us do what is right for the majority of hard working,
overtaxed Canadians who have no loopholes, just empty pockets.
Let us be fair to all taxpayers and defeat Bill C-93.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did enjoy the address of the hon. member for Simcoe
Centre on Bill C-93.
I will give a brief review of one of the small historical museums
in my riding. It is run entirely by volunteers. The artefacts and
historical objects are donated through projects such as this. Two
years ago that small historical museum had to sell off some of those
artefacts in order to pay its operating expenses. This is the
Colchester historical society museum.
When the hon. member for Simcoe Centre talks about the
fairness of the bill and the cost of maintaining art, culture and
objects of historical significance in Canada, is it not better and of
more value to Canadians to give these artefacts through a tax credit
than for the taxpayers to have to use tax dollars to purchase art of
value and historical artefacts that maintain the integrity of the
history of Canada?
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question of the hon. member. I was certainly pleased to hear that
there are volunteers running the artefacts museum in her riding.
That is wonderful. We need more volunteers working in our
communities.
(1745 )
I do not buy the premise that we have to offer tax credits in order
to get these works of art these different paintings and sculptures to
remain in Canada. I believe there are many Canadians who have
done well in businesses in Canada who are prepared to make those
14840
donations tax free without any tax credits. The government is
making the assumption that we have to do this to encourage it and I
do not believe that.
We certainly cannot and should not be doing it at this time in our
history when we are in the financial mess we are in. We just do not
have the dollars to throw away in the form of tax credits to the very
wealthy in this country.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am still
mystified by the economics. Why is it that a $1,000 painting that
we can acquire for $500 is not a good one?
The member made the analysis between this kind of
consumption of art work as part of our cultural history and identity
with donations to charitable organizations. I am not clear at all on
the member's point of view. Should we be raising the tax credit for
charitable donations or should we be lowering the tax credit for
works of art to 20 per cent? It is not at all clear what his analogy is
and where that is taking us. Maybe the member could address that.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to
address that. I am not surprised that it is not clear when somebody
thinks that spending $1,000 or $500 of money we do not have
makes sense. That kind of logic escapes me.
I am attempting to get across that the tax credit for these works
of art is overly generous. We should be more generous in tax
credits for the charities in our communities that are helping those
who are in need. I thought I made that very clear. As I mentioned
earlier, the mathematics on the other side escape me and their
inability to grasp the seriousness of the debt position this
government is in at the moment.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
were talking a little while ago about the acquisitions government
has made and just how credible it is when it comes to making these
acquisitions.
I wonder if the hon. member is aware of the current display at the
National Gallery by the artist Paul Wong entitled: ``On Becoming a
Man''. It depicts a man and a woman laying buck naked in a bed
with a couple of blow up dolls. I am certain there are all kinds of
wonderful reasons to acquire this kind of art and probably no price
is too high to pay for this wonderful art, but I am wondering if the
hon. member from Simcoe has seen this. If so, can he tell us
whether or not this is a worthy acquisition and an appropriate role
for our federal government to be playing?
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I must admit I
have not seen this wonderful piece of art. Having it now described I
do not think I will take the time to go and look at it. It is another
example of the terrible waste of our tax dollars. Thousands and
thousands of Canadians will never get to see it and many more of
them would never want to see that kind of art. It is a tragedy that
money is being spent in that area.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
moment ago my colleague from North Vancouver mentioned a
phone call from an 86-year old.
In Wild Rose a lot of people watch the parliamentary channel
and the things that go on. In my colleague's view, just exactly
where would this type of bill fit in the list of priorities of today's
problems we have in government? People in Wild Rose are saying
there is a $600 billion debt. Parents of 10-year old children like
Melissa are worried sick about what may happen to them. Bombs
are blowing up all across the country because gangs are claiming
turf or making sure they get their turf if they do not have any. We
sit around and talk about all kinds of things that crop up because the
magicians over there and their highly paid lawyers come up with
all kinds of documents and legislation that we have to look after.
(1750 )
People in Wild Rose want to know when we are going to get
down to business. In two years we have not accomplished anything
in their view. They would say that right this minute the Prime
Minister and a lot of other people over there should be in their
seats.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, I fully respect
that this is the place to have the debate of the day on this particular
matter. Clearly, we have all been here long enough now that under
no circumstances can the Chair accept any reference to any other
member of any party not being present in the Chamber. I would ask
all of us to please keep that in mind.
I ask the member for Wild Rose to please complete his question
or comment because I must continue with the debate.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, people in Wild Rose would
wonder why we have not filled this place with all members of
Parliament, getting down to business, working hour after hour in
here trying to solve the problems of the nation. I would like to
know what priority my hon. colleague puts on legislation of this
type.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for Wild Rose for his question. Very simply, I would give
it an extremely low priority. It would actually be below gun
control, which is another waste of a minimum of $90 million of our
hard earned tax dollars.
I find it appalling that we are dealing with issues such as this
while the country is heading into bankruptcy. We are going deeper
and deeper into debt and we are talking about tax credits to the rich.
We are not dealing with the real serious problems we are facing as a
nation. We are dealing with issues that should not even be in front
of us at this time in the history of the country.
If we would do something about balancing our budget so that we
can start offering some tax relief to the citizens of Canada we
would see the economy grow and jobs being created. The overly
14841
high unemployment level would then be reduced to something
which is far more acceptable.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, from the level of the debate particularly from the
opposition benches this afternoon, I can see that the dinosaurs from
the west are not only in Drumheller. Some of them appear to be
alive and kicking and present in the Chamber today.
It is important to understand that cultural property is not just
paintings and fine art. It extends also to natural history,
paleontology and mineralogy, all aspects of human history,
archaeology, military history, antique furniture, antique firearms,
which I am sure my friends like very much, scientific and
technological objects and a full range of archival and library
materials. There have been some significant examples recently of
donations which help to illustrate the diversity of cultural property
that is included in the legislation.
Last summer several pieces of a meteorite fell near St-Robert,
Quebec. These have been donated to institutions in Quebec and to
the Geological Survey of Canada to enable scientists to enhance
their knowledge of space and the history of the universe.
The Hudson's Bay Company donated its extensive archival
collection of business records dating from the 17th century to the
present to the archives of the province of Manitoba. This collection
includes information rich documentation that is being consulted
and analyzed for such diverse information as arctic exploration,
Canada's economic development and even climatic changes and
weather patterns.
Native run museums in British Columbia have been able to
retain important and in some cases sacred objects in their
communities through donations facilitated by the act.
Some people like to characterize these tax credits for donations
of cultural property as loopholes for the wealthy.
(1755 )
I am thinking today of some constituents of mine. They are not
people who drive $70,000 Cadillacs to Parliament Hill. For
instance there is a research scientist for the federal government
who has a group of seven painting which he inherited from his
grandmother. He has loaned it to the art gallery of Windsor. A
grade school teacher who is a friend of mine has collected primitive
Inuit pieces over many years which I am sure she will ultimately
donate. There is an anthropologist retired from the University of
Windsor who has a collection of native relics. On Pelee Island in
southwestern Ontario there are retired farmers who have exquisite
collections of fossils and native relics. These are not wealthy
people. These are not people for whom these so-called loopholes
are gaining extraordinary advantage. These are people who would
like to be able to make a donation of their precious collections.
Even if somebody is wealthy, and some donations are made by
wealthy Canadians, this is consistent with their support of
performing arts, of the arts community and of collecting
institutions. Without their support Canada's museums, archives
and libraries would not have the quality collections they now
possess. Nor would we be able to actively participate in the
international exchange of exhibitions and scholarships. Without
strong collections in our custodial institutions we would have a
reduced sense of our own identity and a diminished role
internationally in the cultural domain.
Many individuals who have donated important objects of
Canadiana have donated those objects from collections which have
been with their families for generations. They have contributed to
the preservation of Canada's history. These individuals have
chosen to enrich the collection of a local or national institution
rather than exporting the object for sale with the result that it would
be lost to Canada forever. While they may receive a tax credit for
their donation, it is nevertheless a philanthropic act on their part
because the money they receive is equivalent to about 50 per cent
of the fair market value of the object.
Donations ensure that we are able to maintain a record of artistic
development in Canada and that artists receive the recognition and
exposure in Canada they so richly deserve.
In today's economic climate few collecting institutions have
funds to purchase objects and we must therefore rely on donations.
By offering incentives for donations to custodial institutions that
have demonstrated they meet professional standards, the
Government of Canada is able to provide assistance to ensure that
their collections continue to reflect our country's heritage. This is
something that is certainly valued by the government if not by the
Reform Party.
Responsibility for determining fair market value of cultural
property has been transferred from Revenue Canada to the
Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board. This happened
in 1991. However this arm's length board was making decisions
which could not at that time be appealed. The establishment of an
appeal process of the determinations of the Canadian Cultural
Property Export Review Board proposed in this bill will permit any
donor of cultural property who disagrees with its decision the
opportunity to pursue this ultimately with the Tax Court of Canada.
What could be fairer?
The amendments in this bill should be reviewed as a guarantee of
the donor's right to natural justice through an appeal to the judicial
system if that is warranted. These amendments should also be
viewed as the reinstatement of the right of appeal that was lost in
14842
1991 when the responsibility for determining fair market value
was transferred to the review board.
The announcement of these proposed amendments was
applauded by members of the public who enjoy and who value our
cultural history, by collectors, by custodial institutions and by
members of the review board itself. We believe that the
establishment of this appeal process will strengthen the incentive
for individuals to collect and ultimately to donate cultural property
to designated institutions or public authorities rather than to sell it
on the international market.
In recent months articles have appeared and comments have
been made even in this House suggesting that tax avoidance
schemes have extended to donations of cultural property.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I regret having to interrupt
the member. Certainly she will have the opportunity to conclude
her remarks when this bill comes back to the House for further
debate.
* * *
The House resumed from September 21 consideration of Bill
C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,
the Criminal Code, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and
Reformatories Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act, as reported
(with amendments) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-45, an act to amend the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code, the
Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the
Transfer of Offenders Act.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The first question is on
Motion No. 1.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 333)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
Epp
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hoeppner
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)-34
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Caron
Catterall
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-156
14843
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bonin
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Cauchon
Chan
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duhamel
Dumas
Finestone
Fry
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godin
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Ianno
Kirkby
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Massé
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Patry
Pomerleau
Proud
Rideout
St-Laurent
Stewart (Northumberland)
Walker
Wells
(1825 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
Mr. Boudria Mr. Speaker, would you seek unanimous consent to
apply the result of the vote just taken to report stage Motions Nos.
4, 5, 17 and 19 of the same bill?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
(1830 )
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I understand that most of my
colleagues will go along with this. That is their intention. If there
are any exceptions I will expect them to rise.
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the motion of the
government House leader.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motions Nos. 4, 5,
17 and 19 negatived.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 333.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on
Motion No. 7.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe there
would be unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken on the
previous motion, Motion No. 1, in reverse to the motion now
before the House.
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Agreed.
Mr. Taylor Agreed.
Mr. Bhaduria: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 334)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Caron
Catterall
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Payne
Peric
14844
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-156
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
Epp
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hoeppner
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)-34
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bonin
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Cauchon
Chan
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duhamel
Dumas
Finestone
Fry
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godin
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Ianno
Kirkby
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Massé
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Patry
Pomerleau
Proud
Rideout
St-Laurent
Stewart (Northumberland)
Walker
Wells
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 7
carried.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 10. An affirmative vote on
Motion No. 10 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 11. A
negative vote on Motion No. 10 requires a vote on Motion No. 11.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent for this motion to be deemed to have carried on division.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Agreed.
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
Mr. Bhaduria: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 10
carried.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on
Motion No. 16.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe there
would be unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken as
follows: Members of the Liberal Party who voted on Motion No. 1
will be recorded as having voted Nay on the motion now before the
House.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will
also vote Nay.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: The Reform Party will vote yes on that except for
any members who might wish to stand to the contrary.
Mr. Morrison: I would vote in opposition to the motion.
Mr. Taylor: New Democrats are voting yea on this motion.
Mr. Bhaduria: I will be voting against this motion.
(The House divided on the Motion No. 16, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 335)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
de Jong
Epp
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hoeppner
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
14845
Mills (Red Deer)
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)-37
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Caron
Catterall
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-153
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bonin
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Cauchon
Chan
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duhamel
Dumas
Finestone
Fry
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godin
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Ianno
Kirkby
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Massé
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Patry
Pomerleau
Proud
Rideout
St-Laurent
Stewart (Northumberland)
Walker
Wells
(1835 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 16
negatived.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (for the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.)
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in and read the
second time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe there
would be unanimous consent for applying the vote at the report
stage on Motion No. 1 in reverse to the motion now before the
House.
14846
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Yes, we can accept a reversal on that, Mr. Speaker,
except for anyone who might wish to do the contrary. They will
stand.
Mr. Taylor: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bhaduria: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 334.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
(Bill concurred in and read the second time.)
* * *
The House resumed from September 21 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-90, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the
Excise Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, the House
would give its consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members being recorded as voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will
vote against this motion.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members, as I read
them, will vote no to that measure. If there are exceptions they will
stand.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats will vote nay in
opposition to this motion.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes for the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 336)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Catterall
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-126
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Epp
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Taylor
Thompson
14847
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)-64
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bonin
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Cauchon
Chan
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duhamel
Dumas
Finestone
Fry
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godin
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Ianno
Kirkby
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Massé
Ménard
Mercier
Paré
Patry
Pomerleau
Proud
Rideout
St-Laurent
Stewart (Northumberland)
Walker
Wells
(1840 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
* * *
The House resumed from September 22 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and
the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese
based substances, be read the second time and referred to a
committee; and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on the amendment to second reading
proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North, if you were to
seek unanimous consent, the House would be willing to apply the
vote taken on report stage Motion No. 1 of Bill C-45, the first vote
we took today, to the motion now before the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Agreed.
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
Mr. Bhaduria: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the amendment
lost.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 333.]
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-103,
an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the House will now proceed to the taking of deferred division at
second reading stage of Bill C-103.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find that the
House would be willing to apply the vote just taken in reverse to
the motion now before the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Agreed.
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
Mr. Bhaduria: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 334.]
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
_____________________________________________
14847
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is
deemed to have been moved.
(1845 )
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on April 26, 1994 I put a question on the Order Paper
which the government still has not answered.
I asked as follows:
With respect to the $3.3 billion in 1994-95 and the $3.1 billion in 1995-96 the
government will spend for grants to business, (a) what agency dispenses these
grants, (b) what criteria does the government apply to determine which
businesses receive grants and (c) how do these criteria differ from those used by
the previous government?
I did not ask the government to provide me with a list of grants to
businesses. Instead I merely asked the government to explain how
14848
it decides who will receive these generous payouts of taxpayers'
dollars, who does the paying out and how the Liberals' actions
differ from practices followed by their predecessors.
These are questions which Canadian taxpayers have every right
to expect their government to tell them. What possible reason could
there be for the government to take 17 months and still not supply
an answer? Could it be that the government does not know what
standards it applies in deciding what businesses (a) or (b) should be
given a grant? Somehow that does not really seem likely. However
if the government did know what standard it uses, why would the
government not simply have answered my question?
The conclusion most taxpayers will probably draw from the
government's refusal to reply is that the standards it uses dare not
be exposed to the light of day, that it would expect more trouble
from supplying the answer than it could get from simply not
answering.
This conclusion will probably lead many people to assume that
Liberal Party patronage is one very big criterion for receiving
money from the current Liberal government, just as it has been so
often charged that Conservative Party patronage was one very big
criterion for receiving money under the Mulroney Tories.
Liberal-Tory, same old story.
I raise this question after listening to many discussions in the
Standing Committee on Industry. Since that time I have moved
over to the natural resource committee, serving as the the Reform
forestry critic. I attended meetings with representatives of the
forest industry all across Canada.
A question I often asked these members of the forest industry
was: What can we do to get the federal government out of the
natural resource area which according to the Constitution should
fall under provincial jurisdiction? One of the answers I often heard
was to put an end to federal grants to the forest industry. The forest
industry may apply for those grants but they apply only because
their competitors do so. If one business in the field gets a federal
grant and another business in the same field does not, it gives the
first one an unfair competitive advantage over the other.
Nobody is more competitive than a logger. I feel certain that the
same is true of Canadian business and industry across this great
country. Individual business owners want to be free of government.
They want to be free of the red tape required to complete the
application forms. However, if their competitor is applying for and
likely getting a grant, then businesses needing to compete must do
the same.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that grants to businesses and
industry must end. They must end for several reasons. They are a
needless burden on the taxpayers at a time when government is
struggling to find money for essential services like health care and
education. They must end because they are like the apple in the
Garden of Eden as a temptation to politicians to favour their old
friends and their party supporters in a system of pork barrelling and
patronage which is a disgrace to honour and integrity in
government.
Grants to businesses and industry must end because they
subsidize those less able and least trustworthy to succeed at the
expense of those most able and most worthy to succeed. In short,
grants to businesses and industry are readily used to reward failure
and to penalize success. Canadian businesses and industry deserve
better.
As I conclude my remarks I ask hon. members: When will I get
an answer to the question I raised 17 months ago?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. member.
As he knows, having transferred his question for debate, he now
will not get an answer except what I tell him tonight and I do not
have an answer for him tonight. He can put his question on the
Order Paper again, perhaps in a slightly modified form, and maybe
he will get an answer in due course.
I want to recall what happened. The question was put on the
Order Paper on April 26, 1994. Officials in the Privy Council
Office dispatched the usual inquiries to the appropriate government
departments and were advised that four departments or four
agencies of the government would be able to provide a satisfactory
response to the question.
When the response was received in July, after the House had
adjourned for the summer, I had an opportunity to review the
response. I take some personal responsibility for this. I concluded
that the response was unsatisfactory because only four agencies
had been canvassed when in fact the question was not specific as to
which agencies might have dispensed the money. In fact it was a
question directed to all government departments. Accordingly I
asked that all government departments be contacted to ensure that a
full answer was given to the hon. member, that the answer be
accurate in all respects and to provide an answer in respect of all
government grants to businesses.
My request resulted in the answer being sent back to the
appropriate government department. The government department
in question has not produced an answer to date, despite many
memorandums, despite many requests.
I can only say that this particular department is one which in my
experience, and that of other members of the House, is slow in
responding to this kind of request from the House and from its
committees. I am sorry that is the case, but there is nothing further I
am able to do at this time except to assure the hon. member that if
he puts a question on the Order Paper along similar lines I will
personally speak to the minister of the department and urge that
speed follow in the preparation of the answer to his question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
38, a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.51 p.m.)