36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 191
CONTENTS
Monday, March 8, 1999
1105
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| Motion
|
| Suspension of Sitting
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Sitting Resumed
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1200
| FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
| Bill C-55—Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1250
(Division 327)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Report stage
|
| Bill C-55. Report stage
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1255
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1300
1305
| Mr. John Herron |
1310
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1315
1320
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1325
1330
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1335
1340
| Mr. Dick Harris |
1345
1350
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1355
| CANADA WINTER GAMES
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| CANADA WINTER GAMES
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| CANADA WINTER GAMES
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| CANADA WINTER GAMES
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| CANADA WINTER GAMES
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1400
| FILM INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| AFRICA
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| PUVIRNITUQ CO-OP HOTEL
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| SUDAN
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
| COMMONWEALTH DAY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1405
| COMMONWEALTH DAY
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| THE LATE JOE DIMAGGIO
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| WOMEN PARLIAMENTARIANS
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1410
| INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| TAXATION
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
1420
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| STATUS OF WOMEN
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1425
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| PRISONS
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1430
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1435
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1440
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| WOMEN POLITICAL PRISONERS
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1445
| THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| CHILD TAX BENEFIT
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADA-PALESTINE RELATIONS
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
1450
| NATURAL DISASTERS
|
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| CANADIAN FORCES
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| CANADIAN FARMERS
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
1455
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADA MARINE ACT
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1500
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| PETITIONS
|
| Sexual Offenders
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1505
| Bill C-68
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| Pay Equity
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| Foreign Affairs
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Pay Equity
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Dick Harris |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Public Safety Officers
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1510
| Freshwater
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Property Offences
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Pay Equity
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| PETITIONS
|
| Pay Equity
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1515
| FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
| Bill C-55. Report stage
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1520
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Bill C-55
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
| Bill C-55. Report stage
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1525
1530
1535
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1540
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1545
1550
1555
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1600
1605
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1610
| Mr. John Bryden |
1615
1620
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1625
1630
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1635
1640
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1645
1650
1655
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1700
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1705
1710
1715
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1720
1725
| Mr. Randy White |
1730
1735
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1740
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1745
1750
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1755
1800
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
1805
| Mr. John Cummins |
1810
1815
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred.
|
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| Motion No. 22
|
| Division on Motion No. 22 deferred
|
1835
1845
(Division 328)
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
1850
(Division 329)
| Motion No. 22 agreed to
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
(Division 330)
| Motion agreed to
|
| FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-49. Third reading
|
1900
(Division 331)
| Amendment negatived
|
1910
(Division 332)
| Motion agreed to
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Justice
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1915
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1920
| Airbus
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1925
| Devco
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 191
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 8, 1999
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
1105
The Deputy Speaker: It being 11.07 a.m. the House will
now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
(Bill C-247. On the Order: Private Members' Business)
February 11, 1999—Resuming consideration at report stage of
Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic
manipulation), as reported by the Standing Committee on Health
with an amendment, and of Motion No. 2
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
ask unanimous consent of the House for the following order:
That the Order for consideration at the report stage of Bill
C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic manipulation),
be discharged and that the said bill be referred back to the
Standing Committee on Health for reconsideration of clause 1.
I believe you would find unanimous consent for this motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Health have unanimous consent of the House to
propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would suggest that we suspend the sitting of the House until
noon.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.07 a.m.)
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 12 p.m.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1200
[English]
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
BILL C-55—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising
services supplied by foreign periodical publishers, not more than
one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of
the report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be
allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill; and 15
minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government
business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report
stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the
said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted,
if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every
question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then
under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively
without further debate or amendment.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1250
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Boudria
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| Mifflin
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood
– 125
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Brison
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Duceppe
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laliberte
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Loubier
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
| Proctor
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 72
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bonwick
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Dumas
| Finlay
| Girard - Bujold
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Plamondon
| Provenzano
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
REPORT STAGE
The House resumed from february 10 consideration of Bill C-55,
an act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign
periodical publishers, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee; and of Group No. 1.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words on
this group of motions.
The debate coming from certain quarters has puzzled me somewhat.
The Reform Party has been very strong in its opposition to this
bill. It has been saying that we have no need to protect culture
but only to promote it. That is an interesting observation. I do
not agree with it but it is a free country and people can hold
the views they want.
Today we are debating the 21 amendments proposed by the Reform
Party. In my judgment those amendments delete every clause of
the bill until nothing much is left. The amendments to
methodically delete every trace of the bill seem to reflect the
Reform Party's approach to Canadian culture, not in terms of
protecting but in terms of promoting. In a very methodical and
clinical way these amendments delete, delete, delete until the
bill is emasculated.
An hon. member: That is mean.
Mr. Nelson Riis: My friend says it is mean. Fair enough.
I am just describing reality.
An hon. member: And inaccurate.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, my friend says that this is
an inaccurate comment. I do not think it is inaccurate at all.
It is clear from the content of this grouping that the essential
components of Bill C-55 are being deleted. It is fair to say
that if we support the general thrust of Bill C-55, we will
oppose these amendments put forward by the Reform Party.
1255
It is also fair to say that in the budget plans put forward by
my Reform Party friends, they would also essentially decimate the
Department of Canadian Heritage. I stand to be corrected but
that is my interpretation.
An hon. member: That would be good.
Mr. Nelson Riis: I was sending up a trial balloon. I
could not believe that anyone would want to delete the heritage
department.
An hon. member: Absolutely.
Mr. Nelson Riis: The enthusiasm comes loud and clear and
emphasizes the point. I thank my Reform Party friends for the
firming up of that position. We are good buddies of course, but
good buddies can have different views on things. It is important
that these positions be clarified.
I am actually dumbfounded. When we think about the struggle
this country has. It is dwarfed by our friends to the south, the
United States of America, and the synergy of business promotes
their cultural industries. It is an incredible force and from
day one it has been a continuous battle on our front as Canadians
to stand up to that onslaught.
I look specifically at the film industry. The American film
giants have a stranglehold on the theatres across the country.
Their control is a reality. Think of our struggling film
industry. I am proud to say it is now centred in British
Columbia. For a number of years the Canadian film industry was
centred in central Canada but in the last few months, the size
and the dynamism of the film industry are reflected in British
Columbia. We are proud of that. Maybe it has something to do
with the fact that we are a lot closer to Hollywood than other
parts of Canada, I do not know. Nevertheless, it is a continual
struggle.
It has now been clarified beyond any doubt what these amendments
do to Bill C-55, so I will conclude my remarks and look forward
to addressing the next round of amendments.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
to clarify, the hon. member for Kamloops suggested that the
Reform Party would like to decimate the Department of Canadian
Heritage. It is absolutely true that we want to cut substantially
the waste in the kind of programs administered by the Minister of
Canadian Heritage.
We believe that Canadian heritage and our cultural identity can
better be protected by Canadians than by bureaucrats and
politicians in Ottawa. We believe that free flag giveaways and
handouts to interest groups seeking more cash are exactly what is
wrong with this government. We think the huge subsidies to
bloated crown corporations with their enormous waste and
bureaucracy and middle management produce very little in terms of
concrete results.
Those things are very low in the priorities of Canadians with
respect to public spending. We do not apologize for a moment in
saying that tax relief and health care for hard pressed Canadian
families come as higher priorities to Canadians than grants and
handouts to interest groups through Canadian heritage. We are
proud to be in line with the public's priorities in this respect.
I stand today to speak to this latest folly by the Minister of
Canadian Heritage. She was a very effective member of the
opposition but she really has become something of an
embarrassment to the cabinet, the government and I submit, this
parliament when it comes to the kind of extremism in policy she
promotes.
Bill C-55 is an effort to draw Canada back decades into the era
of protectionism, an era when countries looked inward instead of
outward, an era that is reflective of the kind of campaign the
Minister of Canadian Heritage led against the North American Free
Trade Agreement in the 1988 election.
When the Liberal Party sat on the opposition benches, it told
Canadians that the free trade agreement would be the end of
Canada, that it would be the end of our economic sovereignty and
hence the end of our cultural and political sovereignty.
I remember the cries of Chicken Little from the Minister of
Canadian Heritage and her colleagues at that time suggesting that
to allow free trade between these two great partners, Canada and
the United States, would lead to economic disaster. As we all
know that has been proven to be completely specious.
1300
The one element driving Canadian economic growth over the past
decade overwhelmingly has been our bilateral trade with the
United States, a country with which we conduct some 80% of our
trade, about $1 billion in trade a day. Bill C-55 seeks to
address one very small element of the huge $350 billion plus
annual exchange between these two countries, the $400 million
magazine advertising market.
I must tell members that since deciding to run and since being
elected on June 2, 1997 I have spoken with literally thousands of
people in my constituency as well as thousands of others outside
my constituency, going door to door, meeting people at town hall
meetings, listening to their concerns, speaking on open line
radio shows, and I can say that of the thousands of conversations
I have had with Canadians not a single one has ever suggested to
me that they had the least bit of concern about the sovereignty
of the Canadian magazine industry.
I cannot recall a single ordinary Canadian outside the strange
and twisted political hothouse of Ottawa and the Liberal caucus
who suggested that we need to move decades backwards in economic
policy to enshrine protectionism, as in this bill, in order to
create restrictions on freedom of speech by penalizing American
publications which accept Canadian advertising. Not a single
Canadian has said that to me.
I look at the priorities that we face as a country, priorities I
hear about every single day from ordinary Canadians. Priorities
such as the need to put health care first in our public spending.
Priorities such as the need for tax relief for working families.
Priorities such as the need to democratize this institution to
make Canada a more vibrant and representative democracy. Those
are the priorities Canadians are concerned with. When I look at
the government's legislative agenda I do not see those priorities
addressed anywhere. Instead I see Bill C-55 which deals with an
obscure concern of a relatively small interest group of
enterprises.
What I have heard from my constituents is outrage that this
government is proceeding with this bill. Calgary, which I
represent in part, has a large and growing plastics industry.
Our American friends, through their trade representative Madam
Barshefsky, have indicated that the plastics industry in Canada
could be subject to countervailing measures were we to adopt and
implement the measures proposed before us in this bill. What
would that mean? It could mean potentially devastating tariffs
for the plastics industry and for people who reside in my
constituency.
I have not had a single one of my constituents call me to ask
for this kind of protectionism. But many have called to say
“Please do not let this crazy effort by the minister of heritage
destroy our jobs and impair our industry by provoking the
Americans into a bilateral trade war”.
This bill is plainly and simply irresponsible. The government
claims it is necessary. It throws twisted and completely
inaccurate statistics to the effect that 80% of magazines on the
stand are foreign magazines, implying therefore that the Canadian
magazine industry is a marginal part of what is consumed by
readers, which is completely irrelevant because 75% of all
magazines read in Canada are received by controlled or paid
circulation and about 94% of that segment of the market is
Canadian owned. That is not an issue.
But even if it were, I submit that it is a question of freedom.
I suggest that we need in examining legislation to make reference
to first principles. The first principle that I would propose
for all government action would be to maximize freedom; namely,
liberty. I know it is a dirty word. It sounds like an American
word to some of my friends opposite. But I happen to think that
liberty is a concept deeply rooted in our parliamentary heritage.
I think Canadians ought to have the freedom, the liberty, to
choose which magazines they read, which publications and
periodicals they patronize, without having the government decide
for them which of those magazines is acceptable and in which
format.
1305
It is really the classic 1960s retro, back to the past,
protectionistic, inward looking, parochial liberalism which is
rearing its ugly head in this bill.
I support the amendments put forward by my colleague from
Dauphin—Swan River which seek to delete the various clauses of
this bill because I propose that this is an assault on the
freedom of Canadians. Why do we not let Canadians decide for
themselves what they want to read? If a Canadian wants to order
the split-run version of Sports Illustrated, why do we not
let them buy and read it? Where is the harm in that? What
damage is done to the Canadian cultural fabric by allowing people
to exercise their free choices in deciding what they will consume
in terms of reading materials? I simply cannot grasp the
rationale for this bill.
To try to impose government sanctions essentially on those who
would consume such materials, what we are doing is not only
violating their freedom of expression, we are clearly threatening
a significant portion of our economy and our economic growth.
I have heard no compelling response from this government to the
very serious threats of our American allies to respond through
negative tariffs and countervailing measures if we proceed with
this bill as the government now seems to be intent on doing.
I know that this bill is very similar in form and content to
similar legislation which was passed in the last parliament but
which was found by the World Trade Organization to be contrary to
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. What I can say is
that Canada as a trading country ought to be a champion of free
trade. We ought to clearly abide by the rulings of the World
Trade Organization. We ought not to be trying in bills such as
this to skirt around the rulings of the WTO and other dispute
resolution bodies. By doing so we are impugning our credibility
as a trading nation in the community of nations. For that reason
I think we are doing even greater international damage to our
economic base as a trading and exporting nation.
For all of those reasons I, on behalf of my constituents, will
vigorously oppose this bill. Notwithstanding the fact that the
government is ramming it through this House with a closure motion
today, I will oppose this bill and support the amendments of my
colleague from Dauphin—Swan River.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, when I
first came to the House earlier today it was not my intent to
actually speak to this particular bill. However, I want to react
to some of the comments made by the previous speaker.
I actually heard a very impassioned plea concerning his support
of the free trade agreement which first came into effect in 1989
and which was expanded to the NAFTA in 1993. He actually pointed
out something that is very factual. Canada is indeed an export
driven economy. We rely very much on our trade not only with the
Americans but throughout the world for our economic prosperity.
He also pointed out the benefits of free trade. Before free
trade we had about $80 billion to $90 billion worth of trade
annually with the Americans. Today, because of the success of
free trade, we trade essentially $240 billion worth of
commodities with the Americans on an annual basis.
I agreement with the hon. member that free trade was great for
this country in terms of our wealth and growth. The amount of
substantial growth which we have seen in this country over the
last number of years has been largely due to our export driven,
resource based economies, while our domestic economy continues to
be stifled because our regime is so overly taxed.
In both the FTA and NAFTA we were able to negotiate exemptions
for culture.
That is something which I believe Canadians fundamentally
support.
1310
What is free trade about? It is about the free exchange of
commodities. It is also about fair trade. I believe that
Canadians want to establish their own environmental standards,
their own standards with respect to labour and their own cultural
standards.
The Progressive Conservative Party is supporting Bill C-55
because what it represents to us is free trade.
I wish the hon. member had the opportunity to benefit from
another history lesson which I will touch upon. During the acid
rain debate which culminated in 1987 we had to talk to the
Americans about their industries and what they were doing with
their sulphur dioxide emissions. They were killing our lakes and
rivers. The Americans said that they were not so sure the
science was conclusive. We showed them the science. We also
showed them that they were hurting their northeastern states as
well. We negotiated with Ronald Reagan and George Bush, in a
very aggressive fashion, an air quality arrangement so that
Canada could protect its rivers and lakes with respect to free
trade. We knew it was the right thing to do. Protecting
Canadian culture as well is the right thing to do.
The standpoint of the member who just spoke on free trade and
who said that it was fundamental to the growth of this country,
that if we did not have it we would not be as strong as we are
right now, is a little ironic. I also want to point out to the
hon. member that in 1988 his party chose to run candidates
primarily out west which potentially split our vote and we lost
some candidates. By splitting our vote the Reform Party almost
sacrificed the free trade agreement. This is an individual who
now wants us to unite and come together. It was his party's
fundamental economic principles that actually attacked—
An hon. member: Ten years of Brian Mulroney.
Mr. John Herron: Yes, the member mentions Brian
Mulroney. He actually just defended the free trade agreement
brought in by former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
I also find it ironic that the member is now supporting free
trade when his party jeopardized that particular arrangement. He
is backing off on picking out a party that now wants us to unite
as opposed to not uniting.
The other thing I find a little ironic is that this individual
was speaking about protection for the plastics industry. We also
know that this individual is not necessarily a strong supporter
of the latex industry.
What I want to point out is that Canadians want to be able to
establish their own cultural, environmental and labour standards.
We are an exporting nation. Having said that, every time we get
into a situation from a trade dispute perspective we cannot
necessarily back off for the sake of backing off. We have been
assured by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister for
International Trade that Bill C-55 is NAFTA friendly and that it
will stand up with respect to the mechanisms under NAFTA. That
is why the Progressive Conservative Party is supporting it.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a very real pleasure for me to stand in the House today to
address the very important Bill C-55. I do so on behalf of the
residents of my area of Waterloo—Wellington.
This new measure will ensure that Canadian magazine publishers
continue to have access to Canadian advertising revenues by
regulating the advertising services supplied by foreign magazine
publishers in Canada. It is important to note that this bill is
in keeping with Canada's longstanding policy of promoting
Canadian culture and that it respects our international trade
obligations. We must have Canadian magazines that are vigorous
and viable. Unless Canadians stand up for Canadian culture, no
one else will.
For 40 years the federal government has supported our domestic
magazine publishing industry. That cultural policy has been a
clear success. Today there are more than 1,500 magazine titles
published in Canada with revenues of over $1 billion. Eighteen
of the top twenty magazines available here are Canadian.
1315
It is important to note at this time that the bill that is being
proposed does not affect the content of magazines. Publishers
will continue to produce editorial content that they consider
attractive to Canadians. It does not affect the price of
magazines, for example. Canadians will continue to enjoy access
to foreign and domestic magazines that are competitively priced.
The advertising revenues generated through the supply of
advertising services are critical for any magazine publisher.
Such revenues generate more money than subscriptions or newsstand
sales combined. Without this key revenue source, editorial
content cannot be created or photos purchased. Canadian
magazines simply cannot survive without sufficient advertising
revenues.
The government wants to ensure that Canadians continue to have
access to their own ideas, stories and information. That is why
Bill C-55 is important. It will ensure that Canadian magazine
publishers have access to the funds they need to stay healthy and
provide an essential vehicle of cultural expression. That is
important to note.
The act will prohibit foreign publishers from supplying
advertising services directed primarily at the Canadian market to
a Canadian advertiser. We do not expect, for example, foreign
publishers to respect the will of parliament and not contravene
the legislation. However we need the tools to enforce it if
necessary, if in fact those expectations are met.
These tools are flexible and give publishers a chance to comply
with the law before more serious penalties are needed. If a
foreign publisher is suspected of contravening the law, the
minister has the authority to send a letter requiring that the
action be halted or to demand the foreign publisher to prove that
no offence has taken place. In other words, they can be let off
with a warning.
However failure to comply with a letter to stop would mean that
the minister could turn to the courts. The court can order the
publisher then to stop publishing advertising services or other
activities it deems are outside the law.
The bill provides for maximum fines to be levied against foreign
publishers found by the courts to have contravened the law. Where
an offence is committed by an individual there is a maximum fine
as well. The level of fines must be high enough to be an
effective deterrent.
This measure deals only with the supply of advertising services
to Canadian advertisers. It will not affect the importation of
foreign magazines. It will not affect any Canadian reader's
ability to purchase foreign magazines at newsstands or through
subscription. The Canadian market will continue to be one of the
most open in the world. The act will not apply to foreign
publishers now operating in Canada that maintain their current
levels of activity. Canadian magazine publishers and Canadian
cultural groups support the bill, which is something we should
all note.
Canada will defend its rights as a sovereign country to develop
measures designed to support our domestic cultural expression.
We have negotiated rights in international trade agreements and
we will defend those rights.
Bill C-55 does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Bill C-55 does not violate the NAFTA or any other
international trade obligations. It has never been challenged
before the WTO or in any other dispute settlement today.
American magazines cross our borders every day and Canadian
magazines compete successfully for readers, despite our close
proximity and common language. This is because Canadian
publishers produce original content for the Canadian market,
content which is of interest to Canadians. The bill is about the
advertising services market and the massive cost advantages
foreign publishers would enjoy.
Finally, the legislation ensures that Canadians continue to have
the freedom to express and enjoy a diversity of Canadian ideas,
something we should all be proud of. The new law will guarantee
that Canadians will continue to have access to magazines which
tell their stories to each other in their own voices. It is in
keeping with Canada's longstanding cultural policies and will
ensure that Canadian magazine publishers have access to the funds
they need to do so.
I urge all members of the House to work for a speedy passage of
Bill C-55. It is certainly something Canadians want, deserve and
expect. We need to move expeditiously on it.
1320
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to the amendments to Bill C-55 brought forth by
the member for Dauphin—Swan River. I support these amendments
because I oppose the bill for three good reasons.
The first is that on this issue the government and the heritage
minister are wrong. In fact they are breaking our trade
agreements. The United States in this case has every right to
bring action against Canada if the legislation should proceed and
be put into law. Canada is wrong in this case. The heritage
minister is wrong and the government is wrong. The United States
would be completely justified in doing that. That brings with it
some very serious problems.
The first problem is that it would do an awful lot of damage to
businesses and to workers in this country. We do not know
exactly where the Americans would choose to hit. I will talk a
bit about that in just a couple of minutes.
The second reason I oppose the bill is that it is not supported
by Canadians. The very basic question is who supports the bill
or the legislation. When we ask that question we realize it is
an awfully short list. It pretty much boils down to a list of
large publishing companies. That is who supports the
legislation. It is not supported by most Canadians. It is not
even in the top 10 list of what Canadians feel are important
issues to them right now.
We know that health care is at the top of the top 10 list as is
tax fairness for families. Why are we not debating legislation
that would deal in a proper and meaningful way with either of
those issues? We would support those issues and legislation
that would make things better in those areas, but we cannot
support the legislation. It just is not supported by Canadians
for several reasons, but I think the main reason is that they
recognize the harm that would be done to businesses and the
number of jobs that would be killed in this country should the
bill proceed.
Both major economic houses in the United States government have
come out and very clearly said “If you pass this bill, if it
becomes law, we will take action against Canadian industry,
Canadian businesses”, and that will have an impact on Canadian
workers.
We have a real problem with the legislation. Members of the
Reform Party are not willing to allow a piece of legislation to
pass which is wrong, which is not supported by Canadians, and
which is a real threat to the jobs of Canadian people.
Members of parliament in the House who support the bill and do
not support the amendments will have a lot of answering to do to
the people in their constituencies and across the country when
some of them lose their jobs because of action taken by the
Americans, action which is proper, action which the Americans are
completely justified to take under our trade deal.
I have a big problem with the bill. I have a problem with the
heritage minister bringing forth the legislation. I will
continue to oppose the legislation, no matter what squealing
there is across the floor, and there is plenty of it right now.
I could talk about the steel industry, one industry the
Americans have indicated they might target. The heritage
minister is from Hamilton, the steel city. I could take the
attitude that if action were taken against steel workers and it
hurt that minister, why should I feel bad about it? In fact I
would feel bad about it because we are talking about real people
and real jobs.
Even to get at the heritage minister, to make her wear the shame
that she should wear for bringing forth the legislation, I am not
willing to sacrifice the workers of this country. It would be a
real shame and wrong if steel workers end up suffering for the
actions of the heritage minister and the government in the bill.
I cannot support it for that reason.
1325
I want to talk about the people back home. I am a farmer and
many of the people in my constituency are farmers. Most people
in the House from all parties understand the very serious
situation that farmers are in right now. Most of the harm and
difficulties they are facing right now are not of their own
making. Farmers, above people in any other industry, have done
what they should have done to be able to deal with a downturn in
their industry, but what they did not count on were unfair trade
practices being aimed at them.
That is what is killing their businesses and driving their
commodity prices down more than anything else. It is unfair
trade practices in Europe. Because of these unfair trade
practices in Europe the United States has put in unfair subsidies
to counter them. We also see unfair import restrictions into
Asian countries such as Korea and Japan. Those too are causing
severe harm to our farmers.
In my area probably 25% of hog farmers will go broke. They
either have gone out of business in the past three months and
will in the next six months. Over that nine month period 25% of
hog farmers will be out of business. Very little of the reason
is of their own making. Much of the reason is due to unfair
trade on the part of other countries.
It is the same situation for alfalfa producers. Subsidies in
Spain, for example, are higher than the price that our alfalfa
producers receive for their commodity. That cannot be right.
That is wrong and it is unfair. These unfair trade practices
have to end.
For grain farmers in western Canada prices have been hit
dramatically due to unfair trade practices in other countries.
That is the reason. It is not poor management. It is not the
inability to market their commodities well. It is not that at
all. It is unfair trade practices.
Just imagine that we add to the existing problems of our farmers
action taken by the Americans due to this ridiculous piece of
legislation the heritage minister is bringing forth. It seems
like everyone in the Liberal government, in that caucus, is
willing to support it.
I am bitterly disappointed that members of the New Democratic
Party and the Conservative Party will support this piece of
legislation. They are willing by supporting the bill to see our
farmers suffer even more than they already have through reduced
commodity prices and through borders being shut off. They are
willing to see that suffering for a piece of legislation which
will help very few people. Most of the people it would help are
large publishers that do not need the help, quite frankly.
I do not understand the minister's idea that Canadian publishers
cannot do well in an open and free trading environment. I have
more confidence in them than that. They have done well and they
will continue to do well. They do not need this piece of
legislation. If they did need it and if it were unfair, if it
went against the trade deal, I still could not support it. They
would have to find a way of working through it.
It makes it that much easier to oppose the bill and to support
the amendments knowing that in fact they are not needed. They
will not help, quite frankly. Those who support the bill are
saying with their vote that they are willing to see steelworkers,
people from other industries and farmers who have already been
hit so hard by unfair trade take another hit. I cannot allow
that to happen.
Every member here had better consider the answering they will
have to do to their people back home should they support the bill
and their people become the ones targeted by the American trade
action.
1330
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-55.
I will respond to some of the comments from the other side of
the House. We heard a comment about dictatorship. This bill is
about safeguarding Canadian magazines and it is about
safeguarding our culture. I am amazed at how the official
opposition, standing alone, is once again trying to cave in to
the Americans.
In a National Post article the House leader for the Reform
Party talked about rolling over. It seems to me that any rolling
over is being done by the Reform Party. As soon as the Americans
threaten something, the Reform Party wants to say “We surrender.
Canadian culture is not important and the Canadian magazine
industry is not important”.
If Reform members are the Gingriches or the Livingstons of the
north, and they look to Ross Perot as an inspiration, then I can
understand why some of their reasoning comes forward in the way
they expound it.
In terms of the great united alternative conference, the Reform
Party declared no confidence in itself. No confidence. The
opposition party declared no confidence in itself. And it is
finding out that the Conservative Party does not want to join in
its effort to unite the right, to unite the party that wants to
roll over.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member opposite is straying a long way from the subject.
Because you have not taken him to correction, I assume you are
now giving permission to following speakers to speak on any
subject they want on this bill.
The Deputy Speaker: I thought the hon. member was talking
earlier in his remarks in relation to the position of the
opposition on this bill. He was using the expression “rolling
over” which he just used so I assume there is a connection here
that is going to become manifest in a moment. Since he used the
same expression, I had not thought of interrupting.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the
party opposite being upset when we talk about what it means to
protect and promote culture in Canada. There is no country in
the world that faces the kind of challenges we face in Canada—
An hon. member: I guess not. They are not underneath a
Liberal dictatorship.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I can only ask the
opposition members to quiet down a bit. Once their time comes to
speak, we will all listen to them with great interest.
There is no country in the world that has the unique challenges
Canada has. This bill speaks to that.
That is why most of the parties in the House, with the exception
of one, are supporting it.
1335
For many years Canada has maintained a policy designed to
provide Canadians with distinctive vehicles for cultural
expression. These measures have balanced the need to maintain a
Canadian presence on our own screens, in books, music and
magazines while welcoming foreign cultural products.
Today and possibly always we will be faced with a fundamental
challenge in our cultural relations with the United States.
Culture is the voice that defines us as a nation. It is our
heritage. It is who we are. The U.S. sees culture as an
entertainment commodity with a bottom line. It is constantly
trying to increase its market share across the globe.
Unlike the Reform Party, the Liberal Party does not believe that
our culture is for sale. I will repeat that. Unlike the Reform
Party, we do not believe in selling out our culture and we do not
believe in rolling over. Because of this essential difference, we
never play on the same field. We and other smaller countries
must insist on making our own policies that maintain our cultural
existence.
That said and despite our differences, the U.S. and Canada are
neighbours, friends and each other's best trading partner. Given
the vast amount of trade in goods and services which move freely
across our borders, only a small percentage are subject to
occasional disputes. When trade irritants do arise, the two sides
have traditionally sought to resolve their differences through
bilateral dialogue or if necessary, by resorting to the dispute
settlement provisions in trade agreements. It is not rolling
over.
Canada will defend its rights as a sovereign country to develop
measures designed to support our domestic cultural expression. We
have negotiated rights in international trade agreements and we
will defend these rights.
Bill C-55 ensures that Canadian magazine publishers have fair
access to Canadian advertising services revenues. Without these
revenues, they would be unable to provide readers with the broad
range of Canadian publications currently available.
Bill C-55 does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Bill C-55 does not violate the NAFTA or our other
international trade obligations. It has never been challenged
before the WTO or any other dispute settlement body.
Bill C-55 does not impose additional restrictions on Canadian
advertisers. They will continue to enjoy the same opportunities
they have always had, including access to international markets
via foreign magazines.
The bill does not place restrictions on the content of magazines
or of individual advertisements, or limit Canadians' access to
foreign magazines.
Bill C-55 does not limit competition in the Canadian magazine
industry. In fact, Bill C-55 ensures the economic viability of
the Canadian magazine industry and the preservation of over 7,000
jobs for Canadian writers, artists, photographers, editors and
art directors.
U.S. magazines cross our border every day and Canadian magazines
compete successfully for readers, despite our close proximity and
common language. This is because Canadian publishers produce
original content for the Canadian market, content which is of
interest to Canadians. This bill is about the advertising
services market and the massive cost advantages foreign
publishers would enjoy.
The legislation ensures that Canadians continue to have the
freedom to express and enjoy a diversity of Canadian ideas.
The main rationale why this House with the exception of the
Reform Party is in support of this legislation is that the
majority of parties in this House believe that Canadian culture
is worth fighting for and that Canadian culture is worth
preserving.
1340
We have to be able to tell the story. We have to be able to
tell the Canadian story from a Canadian perspective from coast to
coast to coast. It will do us precious little good if we have to
hear what this country is about from Hollywood and the United
States. That is why we are fighting to preserve Canadian culture.
As long as this party is in government, we will continue to do
so.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting to sit in the House today and watch
Liberal member after Liberal member stand and read a speech
prepared for them by the office of the heritage minister. One
thing that comes clear in listening to their speeches is that
they do not understand what is at the very root of Bill C-55.
The fact is this is a very profound infringement on the freedoms
of Canadian business. This government is taking one more huge
step of intrusion into the freedom of choice that Canadian
businesses have with respect to where to place their advertising
dollars in this country.
After this bill is passed, Canadian businesses will not be
permitted to place advertising for Canadian readers in the media
area of their choice. That is what Bill C-55 is doing. It is
saying that a Canadian free enterpriser, an entrepreneur, a
business, whether selling goods or a service, cannot advertise in
the Canadian split-run side of an American owned publishing
company. They cannot target Canadian consumers or a potential
market of their product in a split-run Canadian edition of an
American publisher. That is what this bill is saying.
We in the official opposition came to the House in 1993. Time
after time after time we have seen this government intrude
further and further into the lives of Canadians, their family
lives and business lives. What is it about this government that
thinks it should be in control of everything in this country?
Where are the individual freedoms of Canadians? Where are the
individual freedoms of Canadian business?
The government is saying there will be freedoms of expression
and choice in this country under this Liberal government, but
there never will be freedom of choice under this Liberal
government. That is what it is all about. It is about
dictatorship in the strongest form. I cannot believe it. What
happened to democracy? What happened to freedom of choice in
this country? It is a joke.
The member said the Liberal government shall be the protector of
Canadian culture, the protector of Canadianism. Let me give
three examples of how the Liberals protect Canadianism.
This is the government that threatened Canadians with fines
and/or imprisonment if they dared to put on the census form that
they were Canadian. This is the very government that would not
allow a Canadian citizen when asked what heritage they were to
put the word Canadian. People were threatened with criminal
fines and sanctions. Is that the great protector of Canadianism?
The Liberals are a little silent now.
This same government has so little faith in the patriotism of
Canadians that it spent $20 million of taxpayers' dollars to buy
Canadian flags to give away free in an attempt to buy patriotism
from the Canadian people. The Liberals have so little faith in
the patriotism of Canadians that they thought they better give
away some free Canadian flags at a cost of $20 million of
taxpayers' money.
What kind of confidence in Canadianism is that from this Liberal
government that now stands up as the great protector of
Canadianism in this country?
It is a hypocritical position for them to take in the strongest
form.
1345
This one is really the biggest joke of all. This Liberal
government, these great protectors of Canadian culture and
heritage—
Mr. Wayne Easter: Absolutely, protectors of Canadian
culture. That's right.
Mr. Dick Harris: This is the same Liberal government, the
same protectors of Canadian culture and heritage, that thought it
would be a good idea to sell the rights to the RCMP logo to
Disneyland.
An hon. member: Goofy of the north. That's what you boys
are.
Mr. Dick Harris: The proud heritage of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, their logo, their traditions which have been with
this country for decades, which we are all proud of as
Canadians, this Liberal government, these great protectors of
Canadian culture and heritage, thought it would be a good idea to
exploit that Canadian tradition, that Canadian heritage, for a
few American dollars.
How hypocritical can they get? They stand today to call
themselves the great protectors of Canadian culture. They are so
quiet over there now. I think they are embarrassed. They have
been caught like a rat in their own trap.
This is about profound intrusion into the rights and freedoms of
Canadians. That is this government's version of how to run this
country: get its fingers into everything that goes on in this
country through regulations, restrictions, sanctions, impositions
or whatever it can do to control every single person to do its
will or to do things its way. That is the mandate of this
government. It has been since Liberal hero Pierre Trudeau came
on the scene. Unfortunately he is still obviously having an
influence on this government.
Members of the Liberal government are these great protectors of
Canadian democracy. They should be called the great intruders.
With this bill Liberals are like people walking blindfolded into
a den of snakes. The heritage minister has set herself up as the
czar of Canadian publishing, the czar of the industry. She
thinks that she can unilaterally put this restriction on and the
Americans will just roll over and play dead. Does the minister
not realize for one minute the implications of what she is trying
to do? Mr. Speaker, you do not play baseball with a little
tennis racket when you are playing against an American team. You
have to go in with a position of strength.
The minister has just put Canada in a very tenuous position. Do
we think the Americans are going to roll over and play dead
because of the minister's little whim? There is not a hope. We
are going to see retaliation.
Perhaps the Americans should start with the plastics industry
which comes right out of the riding of the Minister for
International Trade. That would be a good place for the
Americans to start, and they have suggested it. Perhaps they
should start with the steel industry which comes right out of the
riding of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. That would be a
good place to start. It is going to happen. Liberals are
walking blindly into this predicament in which they are going to
find themselves on the short end of the stick if they keep going
down this path.
It is a sad day in Canada. It is going to be a sad day for
Canadian manufacturers who are going to find, no doubt, sanctions
against their products entering the U.S. Most of all, I think it
is really a sad day for the freedoms of this country, the
freedoms for which we fought two world wars to protect to ensure
that this country would be a country where if we worked hard, if
we were diligent, if we were prudent in our decisions, we could
succeed. But we have a government come along and say “That was
just a myth. As a matter of fact, the way we do things here
under a Liberal government is the way we say it should be done”.
1350
When I heard about this bill the first thing that crossed my
mind was how many in this Liberal government bought shares in the
big Canadian publishing firms. Is that the real reason? Does
the minister of heritage have a bunch of shares in Maclean Hunter
or Rogers Communications or Time Warner? Is that the reason?
Maybe it is a personal monetary thing. Maybe there is going to
be a big payoff. One usually finds that when people do very
irrational and dictatorial things somewhere down the paper trail
one finds a dollar amount attached to it.
One has to assume that there are two reasons for this: either
there are a bunch of shares owned by this government, by these
caucus members, in Canadian publishers, or the Canadian
publishers are and are going to become very big contributors to
the Liberal Party of Canada. It is a joke.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I was very remiss in my presentation. The information given to
me regarding the census forms and the fines that could be imposed
if one wrote Canadian was given to me by the member for
Okanagan—Shuswap.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that is not a point of
order.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to
the observations of my colleagues opposite on this very
important bill.
As they spoke, I realized that either they did not really
understand what they were talking about or there was some ill
will on the other side.
For example, when one of our colleagues opposite says that the
United States, our neighbours to the south, would be entitled,
if the bill passed, to—
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I regret interrupting my good friend's presentation, as I am
looking forward to hearing it, but when he refers to the members
across the way he mentions presumably a certain party across the
way. I think he should clarify that in this crucial debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kamloops,
Thompson and Highland Valleys is absolutely correct. My
comments were directed to the Reform Party members, not to the
other parties in opposition. My apologies.
With the exception of the Reform Party, everyone understands the
importance of this bill and is prepared to support it.
Getting back to the Reform members, who claim the Americans
would be entitled to all sorts of reprisals against Canada, this
is absolutely false. If they bothered to check, to read NAFTA
or the agreements between us and the World Trade Organization,
they would realize that the U.S. has no more right than any
other country that is a party to these agreements to seek
reprisals with impunity.
They must adhere to certain prescribed standards.
If the Americans decide to go outside the rules they themselves
have agreed to, that is a whole other story. Once again, this
situation gives an insight into the mentality of the official
opposition, for when the Americans bark, the Reform hides out,
of fear for their bite.
We have heard a number of Reform members claim that there would
be reprisals in the area of agriculture. Unfortunately, they
tend to forget that, yes, it is true that agriculture is an
essential sector of our economy, one that is vital to the
well-being of our nation and its people. No one can deny that
fact, but it is also true that culture is of equal importance.
One provides food for the body and the other for the spirit.
Unfortunately, they tend to neglect the second aspect all too
often.
I realize—
The Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon.
parliamentary secretary. He will have seven minutes to finish
his speech, after Oral Question Period.
[English]
I understand there is an agreement in the House that there will
be statements about the Canada Games. We will begin with the
hon. member for Malpeque.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1355
[English]
CANADA WINTER GAMES
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to note that the closing ceremonies of the 1999 Canada
Winter Games took place in Corner Brook, Newfoundland on
Saturday, March 6, 1999.
Each games is a celebration shaped by the vision of the host
community and animated by the thrill of competition and the pride
of athletes seeking to achieve their personal best. The
experience changes the lives of thousands of young athletes and
the life of the host city and surrounding region.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the 3,200
athletes and over 600 coaches and managers from all across Canada
who participated in 21 sports at the games in Corner Brook. I
would also like to congratulate the organizing committee and the
7,000 volunteers who made the 1999 Canada Winter Games a very
special event and a tremendous success.
I know that all hon. members and Canadians everywhere join me in
congratulating the host society, the community of Corner Brook,
which had wonderful hospitality, and the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador for one wonderful, fine time.
* * *
CANADA WINTER GAMES
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this weekend saw the conclusion of the
1999 Canada Winter Games in Corner Brook, Newfoundland.
The two week event saw 3,800 athletes from across the country
competing in 21 different sports. It is a true pleasure to see
young athletes come together in the name of sportsmanship and
competition, and to have the opportunity to meet fellow athletes
from different provinces and territories. The goodwill that is
created by people from all parts of this vast nation coming
together is immeasurable.
I would like to offer my congratulations to the athletes,
organizers, volunteers and the people of Corner Brook,
Newfoundland for a job well done.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA WINTER GAMES
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois congratulates the residents of Corner Brook,
Newfoundland, on the warm and well-organized welcome they
extended to the 350 athletes and those accompanying them who
descended on their city for the Canada Games. One quarter of the
city's 26,000 inhabitants served as volunteers. Bravo to all of
them for their role in the games' success.
The Canada Games Council took the opportunity to pay tribute to
the dedication of Claude Hardy, who has been working with young
people for 30 years and who chairs Quebec's delegation to the
Canada Games. An award was even named after him.
Ontario won the most medals, with 116, just eight more than
Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois congratulates athletes from Quebec
and from all of Canada on their performance.
This being international women's day, it is interesting to note
that women outnumbered men in Quebec's delegation. We
congratulate all the athletes and those accompanying them on
their commitment, and the residents of Corner Brook on their
hospitality.
* * *
[English]
CANADA WINTER GAMES
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of New Democrats in the House of
Commons I would like to congratulate the people of Newfoundland,
and especially the residents of Corner Brook with its 7,000
enthusiastic volunteers who dedicated their time, energy and
talent to support the young athletes who came from coast to coast
to coast representing Canada's very best, including young Patrick
Snider who received a Bronze Medal for épée fencing.
Canadians are truly proud of these young athletes, their
sportsmanship, their professionalism and their achievements. It
was truly moving to see these young future Olympians in
competition. We wish them all well.
* * *
CANADA WINTER GAMES
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus I
am pleased to extend congratulations to the participants and
organizers of the 1999 Canada Winter Games in Corner Brook,
Newfoundland. We applaud and echo the declaration of the
chairman of the Canada Games Council that these truly were the
best games ever.
I am particularly proud of the record performances delivered by
the young men and women of my home province. My province
captured a total of 19 medals, far exceeding the previous record,
and was awarded the Jack Pelech Award as the province displaying
the most sportsmanship and spirit. All of our athletes and our
teams performed well.
I would particularly thank Newfoundland's chef de mission at the
games, a good friend of mine, Mr. Jimmy Tee, for his tremendous
contribution and leadership.
The games in Corner Brook were such a huge success because of
the hard work of the organizers and more than 7,000 volunteers.
We would also like to acknowledge the participation of the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly the Premier
and the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture for their
contributions and support.
As well we want to commend the Government of Canada for being a
major supporter of the Canada Winter Games.
1400
To all the athletes, coaches, organizers, volunteers and the
people of Corner Brook, we extend a very sincere thank you and
congratulations on a job well done. They have made us all very
proud.
* * *
[Translation]
FILM INDUSTRY
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday was an historic evening in Quebec. It marked the
first “Cinéma d'ici” gala.
It was a unique and emotion-filled event at which tribute was
paid to numerous writers, actors and actresses for the talent
and unstinting commitment to quality that characterizes their
work.
Film is very much a part of our culture. Without it, society
has no soul and would be without a vital means of proclaiming
its existence to other nations.
Quebec's film industry is active and draws on considerable
talent. It is up to us, the public, to seek it out, to
appreciate it and to challenge it so that it can more easily
make the transition from within Quebec's borders to the
international stage.
Once again, bravo to all the participants and best wishes for
what promises to be an increasingly successful future for this
cultural industry.
* * *
[English]
AFRICA
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, increasing instability is affecting wide swathes of
Africa, threatening thousands of innocent civilians.
In Angola a precarious peace has been shattered and the conflict
is escalating daily. Land mines are being laid, UN planes shot
down, and thousands face starvation as a result of cancelled
peacekeeping operations. Despite UN sanctions, UNITA rebels are
arming with the proceeds of millions of dollars of illegal
diamonds. The federal government must work with our partners to
stop the fuelling of this conflict.
In Zimbabwe, President Mugabe has been silencing all opposition.
Journalists have been jailed and tortured. Zimbabwe support for
the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo seeks to sink the
country. Mr. Mugabe's is also poised to threaten to privatize
530 farms, which will severely compromise the ability of that
country to earn revenues.
I implore the Minister of Foreign Affairs to work within the UN
to stop Mr. Mugabe from engaging in disastrous economic policies.
* * *
[Translation]
PUVIRNITUQ CO-OP HOTEL
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the official opening, on March 6, 1999, of the hotel of the
Puvirnituq co-op marked the beginning of a new era in tourism
development for the community of Puvirnituq and Nunavik's Hudson
Bay coastal region.
The convention centre, located in a warm environment, provides
all the necessary services for business meetings, receptions or
tourist activities.
Puvirnituq is located 1,1445 kilometres north of Montreal, along
on the east coast of Canada's Hudson Bay. Air Inuit has regular
weekday flights between Montreal and the community.
The co-chairs, Peter Ittukadlak, from Puvirnituq's co-op
association, and Wellie Ittok, from the Fédération des
coopératives du Nouveau-Québec, wish to thank Aboriginal Business
Canada, Industry Canada and Tourisme Québec for their
involvement in this new “Inuit Adventures” tourist project.
Together, we share the common goal of making Puvirnituq an
increasingly popular international destination for tourism,
culture and adventures.
* * *
[English]
SUDAN
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay tribute to the team of women and men led by
Baroness Caroline Cox, president of Christian Solidarity
Worldwide of the United Kingdom. Reverend Cal Bombay from
Crossroads Christian Communications has travelled with these
delegations in his tireless efforts to free the slaves of Sudan.
On February 15, 1999, on a six day mission they successfully
assisted in securing the freedom of another 325 slaves and
facilitated arrangements for the return and redemption of 309
others, making this a total of 634. This group, the majority of
them children, ranged in age from two to forty-two, some having
been taken as slaves since 1994. A previous trip in 1998 enabled
them to purchase the freedom of approximately 500 more slaves.
Christian Solidarity Worldwide calls on the international
community to step up pressure on the NIF regime to desist from
military offensives against innocent civilians and from its
policies of abduction of women and children into slavery,
looting, and the destruction of means of subsistence.
* * *
COMMONWEALTH DAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is Commonwealth Day, a day set aside by over
one-quarter of the world's population to celebrate the values of
co-operation, human rights, democracy and development. The theme
for this year's Commonwealth Day is music, the universal language
to help us foster international learning and understanding.
The Commonwealth is a dynamic association of thousands of
Commonwealth citizens active in international voluntary,
professional, developmental and service organizations which
constitute an important force in building international
co-operation and understanding.
1405
This Commonwealth Day is special as it marks the golden jubilee
of the creation of the Commonwealth. As we look back over the
past 50 years Canadians can take pride in our collective
accomplishments. During the past year Canada continued to play
an active role in Commonwealth fora, discussing and responding to
urgent issues ranging from Nigeria and Sierra Leon to a global
financial crisis.
The Commonwealth has proven itself an effective defender and
promoter of democracy, human rights and sustainable development.
Let us all work to protect this legacy throughout the world.
* * *
COMMONWEALTH DAY
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is Commonwealth Day. In 1949, the second Monday
in March was chosen to be the day when member countries around
the world observe their association as Commonwealth members.
This year's theme for Commonwealth Day is music. Music is a
unifying force that binds us together as citizens of the global
community. The rich variety of music is as diverse as the
Commonwealth itself. The Commonwealth includes over a quarter of
the world's population, spanning differences in race, creed and
language in 54 countries.
Yesterday I was privileged to attend the Royal Commonwealth
Society celebration in Toronto and was impressed by the musical
performances of our young people and their ability to communicate
through music.
Our future is assured as young people around the world
participate in musical activities and share in these
international fora. Happy Commonwealth Day to all.
* * *
THE LATE JOE DIMAGGIO
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
from time to time an individual comes along who people admire all
around the world, a person who embodies class, hard work, dignity
and dedication, a person who is a role model for millions.
Such a person was Joe DiMaggio who died this morning at age 84.
Joltin Joe led his beloved Yankees to nine world series titles in
13 years.
Canadians can see a similarity to some of our own heroes like
Jean Béliveau and Gordie Howe. The Yankee Clipper, like Howe and
Belliveau, starred in another era but his name and reputation are
legendary.
Long before the Blue Jays or the Expos, the Yankees and Joe
DiMaggio were loved by millions of Americans and Canadians.
America has lost a true hero and we finally know the answer to
that musical question “Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio”. He
has gone to rest. May he rest in peace.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, since 1996 the government has been posturing on
changes to the toothless 15 year old Young Offenders Act, the act
that allows youth who commit violent crimes including murder and
aggravated assault to get away with it.
Last May the justice minister released a discussion paper, a
strategy for renewal of youth justice, and at the same time
promised Canadians a new youth criminal justice act by the fall
of 1998.
Fall came and went and now we are two months short of the first
anniversary of the minister's discussion paper. Lo and behold we
hear that a new youth criminal justice act will be tabled on
Thursday.
In typical Liberal orchestration the new act will not be a
universal code of conduct. Rather, it will allow opting out by
those provinces that feel these darling young offenders are
simply misunderstood. Those provinces and indeed most Canadians
that wanted to lower the minimum age of young offenders from 10
to 12 will also be disappointed.
It is regrettable that after a decade of debate we will not get
a universal code. On Thursday the window of opportunity closes
for another decade. The government is afraid to stigmatize young
offenders at the expense and safety of our communities.
* * *
[Translation]
WOMEN PARLIAMENTARIANS
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on December 6, 1921, Agnes Campbell MacPhail became the first
woman elected to the House of Commons. She was the only woman in
the House; the 234 other members were men.
Sixty-seven years later, in 1988, when I was elected for the
first time, there were 39 women out of 295 members of
parliament, or a measly 13% of the overall membership.
Today, there are 60 women out of 301 parliamentarians, which
means 20% of this House's membership.
This is definitely an improvement, but we still have a long way
to go.
According to an inter-parliamentary union study, Canada ranks
20th in the world when it comes to women's representation in
parliaments. Compared to Scandinavian countries, this is a
disaster.
I wonder when the House of Commons will be representative of the
overall population, that is when men will make up 49% of its
membership and women 51%.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today, March
8, is International Women's Day, and the first day of
International Women's Week.
1410
Moreover, this year's theme “Going Strong—Celebrating Older
Women” dovetails very nicely with the International Year of
Older Persons.
Often older women find themselves alone in the world as they
approach the end of their lives, and require an increasing
proportion of health care.
Our government has announced the investment of over $13 billion
in health services, prevention and research. That is thirteen
billion dollars.
The Liberal government clearly has the health of women, and of
all Canadians, at heart, and is prepared to prove this with
concrete actions.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, as we celebrate International Women's Day, women in the
public service are still fighting for the federal government to
keep its promise on pay equity.
Women after 20 years of service with an average pension of
$9,600 are fighting the Liberal government's plan to raid their
pension fund. Women on low incomes live in substandard housing
as the federal government abandons any responsibility for social
housing. Instead of receiving home care many women who need it
are subsidizing the government by providing care for other family
members.
On this International Women's Day Liberal members talk about
“Growing Older: Celebrating Older Women”, but when the Liberal
government puts its slogan into action it means going wrong:
robbing older women.
Women are tired of this double standard. Instead of empty
platitudes it is time for action to ensure that yet another
generation of older women is not condemned to live in poverty.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week's gaffe by the junior finance minister who said that
stay at home parents really do not work was just an honest
reflection of the government's tax policy which treats at home
parents like second class citizens and which, in the words of the
C. D. Howe Institute, accords to children the same value as
disposable consumer items.
His comments were all too reminiscent of statements made by
other Liberal MPs such as the MP for Vancouver Kingsway who said
that stay at home parents were “taking the easy way out”, or
the member for St. Paul's who said that full time moms were
“just elite white women”, or the last Liberal candidate for
Calgary West who characterized stay at home parents as “barefoot
and pregnant in the kitchen”.
These hurtful stereotypes would not be so cruel if they were not
reflective of a tax code which penalizes parents that make real
economic sacrifices to do what they believe is best for their
kids.
Tomorrow we will get a chance to end this discrimination against
single income families whose tax bills are 60% to 100% higher
than their dual income counterparts. Tomorrow all those Liberal
members who profess a commitment to the family will have an
opportunity to put themselves on the record.
Will they bend to the whip or will they do what is right?
Canadians are watching.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, International
Women's Day is an unique opportunity for looking at our progress
as far as the status of women is concerned.
In the past few decades, women have definitely made considerable
advances, but the battle is far from over, as an examination of
their socio-economic situation will show.
In last Saturday's Le Devoir, an article by Claire Harvey
offered a clear picture of just how precarious women's
employment is. According to her, close to 70% of women are part
time workers.
She confirms the Bloc Quebecois' contention that women rarely
qualify for the maternity leave available in the employment
insurance program.
She also indicates that current labour market conditions have
increased poverty among women.
Yet in its latest budget, the Liberal government thumbed its
nose at the difficult situation of women, by refusing to make
any improvements to an employment insurance program which
excludes 7 out of 10 of them.
This speaks volumes about the government's true intentions, and
shows just how far down the grocery list of priorities women
rank.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, today women
throughout the world are being recognized for the enormous
contributions they have made and continue to make toward
improving humanity.
International Women's Day gives all citizens an opportunity to
reflect upon the great strides women have made over the years to
help improve their economic and social condition.
[Translation]
It is thanks to their courage and tenacity that they gained
personal rights that men have always taken for granted.
[English]
Not so long women were not entitled to own property. The right
to vote was only granted to women in 1918 after the famous five
fought successfully to have women declared as persons under the
law.
Women are still struggling for equality. The President of the
Treasury Board would deny their rights by appealing pay equity.
Under Canadian tax laws the Liberal government discriminates
against women who stay home caring for their children versus
those who work in the workplace.
I hope we can commit ourselves today to working together to help
improve the lives of all women within Canada and abroad.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today,
March 8, marks International Women's Day. The Secretary of State
for Multiculturalism and Status of Women expressed all our
sentiments when she said “today is a day to celebrate the gains
that women have made and to plan for the day when we can take our
place for true equality”.
1415
[Translation]
This morning, in my riding of Ahuntsic, I organized for the
fourth time a breakfast to highlight the work of non-governmental
organizations. I once again had an opportunity to see the
exceptional work and the unconditional dedication of several
organizations in my riding, such as Transit 24,
Concertation-femmes, the Montreal Italian Women's Centre,
Maji-Soi, the Maison buissonnière, Remue-ménage, Mono-vie Ahuntsic,
Entraide Ahuntsic Nord et Sud and the Centre d'action bénévole
Bordeaux-Cartierville, to name but a few. These groups are
dedicated to improving the life and plight of women in my riding
of Ahuntsic.
[English]
Today women from Ahuntsic and all over the world, despite
linguistic, cultural and political differences, will join
together in celebration of the progress that women have made and
recognize the further goals we need to achieve together.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TAXATION
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have been debating family tax fairness for days now but the
Liberal excuse for rejecting our motion tomorrow is not exactly
clear. Evidently they have to vote against it just because the
opposition brought it forward.
Let me read that motion again:
That... the federal tax system should be reformed to end
discrimination against single income families with children.
How on earth does the Prime Minister justify forcing his MPs to
vote against that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it makes no sense to pit families where parents work
either in the home or work out of the home against each other.
What is important is that the government recognizes the
tremendous burden and responsibility that parents have raising
children. It recognized its responsibility to work with them,
which is why we referred the matter to the House of Commons
finance committee.
I would ask the hon. member to work constructively with the
finance committee to that end.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will tell you what pits families against each other. It is that
a dual income family and a single income family pay such
discrepant tax rates, and it is the government that does it.
The government has discriminated against parents who choose to
have one of their spouses at home when they have children. The
government has opted in budget after budget to let this
discrimination continue. It is wrong.
I would like to know for those backbenchers who have the courage
to vote against this discrimination tomorrow night, how he will
force his MPs to continue to abandon their principles?
The Speaker: I would judge that the question is at best
borderline. I see the hon. minister is on her feet. I will
permit her to answer the question if she wants to.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are back again to a lack of
understanding of the issue. The hon. member across continues to
talk about the income tax system as if it is the only thing that
is applicable to the issue.
If we look at the graph of a dual income earning family, in a
dual income earning family someone has to take care of the
children until there is a deduction for day care. That puts the
dual income earning family $4,400 behind the single income
earning family.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
talk about a lack of understanding. I think we have seen it
demonstrated right there.
The minister can talk about graphs. She can talk about $4,400.
She can talk about child tax benefit all she likes, but the
government knows that these people are paying 60% to 100% more in
the tax system. There is nothing fair about that. The lack of
understanding is on the government side.
I would like to ask the minister, as soon as she sits down to
hear the question, why the government will not make this fair in
the tax system for families that choose to stay at home with
their kids.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a case of “don't
confuse me with the facts; I mean I don't want to hear what the
facts tell me”.
This information does not come out of some ideology or some
harebrained philosophy. It comes out of looking very clearly at
the cost of a dual income family going to work and the cost of a
single income family going to work, where they are both earning
the same money. The facts speak for themselves.
I would like the hon. member to do some math 101 on this.
1420
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, at the risk of further confusing the secretary of state,
and I hope not to do that, our motion simply calls for an end to
discrimination against single income two parent families. That is
it. There is nothing confusing about that. What is the problem?
I ask the government what is the problem with that?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problem is simple but not
simplistic. The problem is simply that income tax is not the
only system families depend on for their income. There are
transfers to families in which the Government of Canada does not
discriminate against single income families. The child benefit
is a major one that assists low income single income families
headed by single mothers.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would suggest the government tries to find
complexities where it does not want to find solutions. The fact
is that single income two parent families are being penalized by
this tax system. When is the finance minister going to end it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have a progressive tax
system and we tax on the basis of individual income. If the hon.
member is against that, then she should stand in the House and
say that people who earn $25,000 a year should pay more in income
tax than those who earn $50,000. If that is not her position,
then she will go to the House of Commons finance committee and
she will work constructively with members of the government who
want to make sure that families who are raising children have a
partner in the Canadian government.
* * *
[Translation]
STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today
is International Women's Day, a day set aside to reflect on the
status of women in Canada and to examine our behaviour and
actions.
But, when it comes to women's issues, the most significant thing
this government has done has been to abolish the Canadian
Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
Is the minister responsible for the status of women proud of
having abolished this agency and does she think doing so has
advanced the cause of women?
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that today,
on International Women's Day, we should think about women, but it
is not the only day. While we only get such questions from the
opposition today, this government spends the other 364 days
looking after policies that would increase gender equality.
In response to the hon. member's question, Status of Women
Canada this year has spent over half a million dollars funding 22
organizations within Quebec to assist them in encouraging
equality for women in that province.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
the minister paid more attention to what went on in the House,
she might know that we have asked many questions about women's
issues.
An hon. member: They never have any answers.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: They never have any answers.
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women was created
to advise the government on various women's issues and to
propose policy directions.
Does the minister realize that, by abolishing this council, the
government has become both judge and judged as it were? Can the
minister tell us who is now advising the government on women's
issues and who is representing women impartially when these
issues come up for discussion?
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the advisory council on
the status of women was disbanded, an independent arm's length
body was set up to fund research on women's issues. Much of this
research is critical analyses of the government's policies. We
have funded five such research initiatives in Quebec over the
last year.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this
International Women's Day, there is a great temptation to review
what the government has done to support changes in the status in
women in society.
The main decision the Secretary of State for the Status of Women
has made was to reduce funding to women's groups.
Is the Secretary of State for the Status of Women proud of what
she has done when she sees the activities of thousands of
women's groups threatened because she has literally starved
them?
1425
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have not cut the supply of
funding. The same amount of money is going into funding. We have
changed the manner in which we fund organizations to the benefit
of the province of Quebec and the women's organizations there
which are getting more money than they used to get. More groups
are getting it. Some groups have availed themselves of three
year funding which they never used to be able to do before.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like the minister to go and see for herself what is actually
happening. She might understand the real situation. What she
has just said is utterly false.
I would remind the Secretary of State for the Status of Women
what she has already said. She promised women's groups that
there would be more funding available to help them.
When does she plan to honour her commitment, since, in the
latest budget, there was not one cent more for these women's
groups?
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think one of the things that
is very difficult for the members across to understand is that
issues that deal with women's equality do not only sit within
Status of Women Canada. Gender based analysis has made it
possible for departments across this government to suddenly make
women their number one priority. In achieving it, Human
Resources Development Canada has gone about trying to enhance the
ability of women to get training. The child tax benefit has
assisted many of the poor, single income women with children so
that they can afford to look after their children.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance has demonstrated some open-mindedness in
recent days about finding ways to end the discrimination against
stay at home parents. He does not have to agree with everything
the Reform Party is saying or for that matter what others may be
saying.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance, within the context of
preserving the progressivity of the Canadian tax system, would he
commit that by next year's budget he will find a way to end this
discrimination?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows that whether it be the care giver
credit, the child tax credit, the national child tax benefit, we
have worked on this problem consistently budget after budget. As
the minister said, this is not something we all of a sudden
discovered, as has the Reform Party.
I do not want to prejudge what the House of Commons finance
committee is going to do, but I certainly am going to say that I
am sure that the hon. member, unlike perhaps the Reform Party,
will work constructively with the House of Commons finance
committee to see if we can come up with what is the proper
answer.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the problem with the system as it now stands is that there is no
universal benefit that values parenting no matter how it takes
place. We have to honour all those choices. We have talked
about honouring the stay at home choice by ending the
discrimination. We also need to talk about honouring the choice
of those who choose to, or perhaps those who do not have the
choice and have to work outside the home. It seems to me the way
to do that is to make the new social union framework work. Test
it by having the federal government show leadership and use the
new social union to bring in a new national child care program.
What about that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the child tax credit in fact does go to families,
whether or not both parents are working in the home, or whether
or not parents are working outside of the home. The basic point
that is raised by the hon. member, which is the responsibility of
government to work in partnership in terms of the raising of
children and recognizing that burden and that responsibility, is
a point which is well taken.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will table long awaited
changes to the Young Offenders Act this week. From the usual
leaks from her department we know much of the content of the bill
is before the public and that it will allow some provinces to opt
out.
These much overdue changes are but minor progress toward
correcting the dangerous trend of youth violence in Canada. All
of these changes will have little effect if the law enforcement
community does not have the necessary resources to enforce the
law.
Will the minister commit to assuming the intended 50% funding
responsibility of the federal government for the existing and the
new legislation?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
extensive consultations have been done. All the attorneys general
across the country have been consulted. The government will be
bringing forward legislation on young offenders very soon.
* * *
PRISONS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Of
course, that does not come near to answering the question, Mr.
Speaker, so I will try another 50% question.
Last week on the subject of 50:50 prison release quotas, the
solicitor general stated there are no quotas, there never were
any quotas and there never will be any quotas.
If this is to be believed, how does the solicitor general explain
CSC commissioner Ole Ingstrup's statement that by the year 2000
he would like to see a 50:50 ratio between convicted felons in
prison and those on parole? Could he please explain exactly what
a 50:50 ratio is if it is not a quota?
1430
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ingstrup wrote an open letter
indicating that there were absolutely no quotas. I can assure my
hon. colleague that there are no quotas, there never were any
quotas and there never will be any quotas. Public safety is
always the number one issue and it will continue to be.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, British
Columbians are overwhelmingly opposed to the Nisga'a treaty, so
much so that this government will not even let them have a vote
on the deal.
This government wants to ram the Nisga'a treaty down the throats
of British Columbians by rushing it through this House before the
B.C. legislature has even had a chance to deal with it.
Why is the government insulting British Columbians by denying
them a vote on the Nisga'a deal? Why is it ramming it through
this House and down the throats of British Columbians?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is wrong. We have a tripartite process with the
Nisga'a people, the Government of British Columbia and the
Canadian government. We have obligations under that tripartite
process to put forward a legal document. It is still in the
drafting process. We do not yet have a legal document.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member
talks about a tripartite agreement. What he fails to mention is
that the people of British Columbia are not part of that process.
This government is bent on insulting the people of British
Columbia.
If the government is so sure that the support for the Nisga'a
agreement is there, why is it refusing to have a democratic
referendum on this deal? What is wrong with giving this
controversial deal the democratic seal of approval?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is a matter for the British Columbia government.
However, I do want to inform the House and the public who are
watching on television that this bill which the member says is
being rammed through the House has not even had first reading
yet. We are proceeding with due deliberation. The hon. member
should not try to say something which creates the wrong
impression.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, women are
being heavily penalized by the new employment insurance program,
because they need to work twice as long to be eligible for
maternity benefits.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development going to finally
come down from his ivory tower and comply with the repeated
calls by the Bloc Quebecois to remedy the unacceptable situation
in which the new employment insurance program places women?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of
this House to the fact that the new employment insurance program
has made it possible for women who work part time, whose work
weeks are under 15 hours, and who were never before covered, to
now be eligible.
I also want to remind the hon. member for Québec of the family
income supplement, which we have integrated with our employment
insurance reform, and to the 220,000 people who receive that
supplement. Two-thirds of those who benefit from this
assistance, which is part of the employment insurance reform,
are women.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it might have
been worth the minister's while to read the article by Claire
Harvey in this past weekend's Le Devoir, which quoted the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
With all the projected exclusions in the employment insurance
program, does the minister finally intend to make the decision
to bring in changes to the program which will change this
unacceptable system, which excludes seven out of ten women from
benefits?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that women, and
men, who lose their jobs or leave them for a good reason are
perfectly covered by the employment insurance program. Allow me
to repeat the figure once again: 78%.
I also want to point out that our reform has provided
retroactivity to women, so that they may benefit from active
employment measures, which was not the case in the legislation
the Bloc Quebecois wants to go back to.
Retroactivity for women who have been in the home for a number
of years is now up to five years, so that they may receive
assistance in returning to the work force.
* * *
[English]
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today the government called closure for the 49th time, this time
on C-55.
At least two Chinese language magazines under foreign ownership
are published in Canada: World Journal and Ming Pao
magazine. The heritage minister's Bill C-55 will shut down these
magazines which are published in Canada.
1435
The heritage minister says that the magazine bill will protect
culture. If that is the case, why are Chinese Canadians paying
the price?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first I thank the hon. critic from the Reform Party
who last week came out in support of the government's policy on
official languages. That was very much respected.
I also want to say that if the member has an opportunity to
review the legislation he will note that any magazine that is
currently publishing is not touched by the legislation.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-55 will have an immediate effect on foreign owned split
runs other than American.
Many Chinese people came to this country seeking freedom, like
freedom of speech. Over 100,000 Canadian Chinese will read the
World Journal and Ming Pao magazines. Why is the
minister willing to sacrifice their readers?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore once again and I am speaking in
a temperate fashion because I want to measure my words carefully.
The member is making certain claims, all of which are completely
false. The fact is the legislation made a provision for
grandfathering precisely because magazines that are currently
publishing here should not have any change to their operation.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
deportation of Nancy Castillo Duran, scheduled for March 11, has
mobilized an impressive number of organizations, individuals and
elected representatives, all of them calling on the minister to
review her decision.
Will the minister admit that there is no valid reason to deport
Mrs. Castillo Duran, since both her children were born here, she
is legally married, she is a member of Quebec society, she has a
job offer and, to put it briefly, she has made her life here for
the past 18 years?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve knows full well that the Privacy Act
prevents me from commenting publicly on this file.
That having been said, it is very clear that such situations
raise questions about the existing system and illustrate the
need for a review of the system to make it much more effective.
This is something the government is planning for this year. In
the meantime, the situation of concern to the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will be reviewed.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us
be clear: the system allows the minister to take compassionate
action.
Will the minister stand by while a 12 and 13-year old are
separated from their mother? We are calling on her today to
please take action, because these children need their mother.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the file is now being reviewed.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
is International Women's Day. And yet, Leyla Zana, a mother of
two and member of parliament in Turkey, will not be celebrating,
because she is imprisoned in Turkey for upholding the rights of
the Kurds.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs defend human rights on the
security council so Turkey will free this woman?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have already raised this particular case directly
with my counterpart, the minister of foreign affairs of Turkey.
The response was that the case is before the European council and
the European Court of Human Rights and is being dealt with
according to the rules.
I can assure the hon. member that we will continue to press the
Turkish authorities not only to provide for proper justice but to
try to find some reconciliation to give the current minority in
that country its proper rights.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the European Union has made it very clear in speaking
out against human rights atrocities by the Turks against the
Kurds. We cannot wait any longer.
Leyla Zana's crime was to speak her language and have freedom of
speech.
Again the question is will the foreign affairs minister take
this case to the UN Security Council and demand that all human
rights atrocities by the Turks against the Kurds be stopped?
1440
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member properly knows, human rights
cases do not go to the security council. Human rights cases go
to the UN commission on human rights in Geneva.
We just finished a major consultation this past week where the
matter was raised. As I have said, I have raised the matter
directly myself to the point where the case is now being heard
before the European council on human rights.
I once again emphasize that we believe it is very important in
all of our dealings with Turkey that it recognize the need to
establish proper human rights for the Kurdish minority.
* * *
[Translation]
WOMEN POLITICAL PRISONERS
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the dawn of
the year 2000, Amnesty International continues to report too
many horror stories of women being imprisoned for political
reasons.
Brutality, rape, arbitrary and abusive arrest, this is what
awaits women peacefully working to have their rights respected.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Could
Canada not use its presence on the security council to exert
political and diplomatic pressure in order to free such
political prisoners around the world and finally condemn those
countries violating their basic rights?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member likely knows, last February when
we were present at the council we specifically raised the
initiative at the security council to deal with the broad issue
of the persecution of civilians during times of conflict. In
that case we specifically raised the problems related to
humanitarian workers, to children, to innocent victims, including
woman, and said that the United Nations Security Council must
address these problems through a series of concrete
recommendations.
We are now waiting for the secretary general to provide a
response to that initiative and we will be very glad to share it
with the hon. member because we think it is an important step
forward in the promotion of the protection of women's and
children's rights in times of conflict.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, older
workers often have difficulty finding employment.
In New Brunswick we have the so-called New Brunswick job corps,
where nearly a thousand men and women participate in a program
for those over 50. It is funded by our federal and provincial
governments.
I would ask the Minister of Human Resources Development to
explain the anxiety that we have in New Brunswick over the fact
that the program may soon end.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce
that the New Brunswick job corps program will continue until
December 1999. This will allow the last 930 participants to
finish the project.
We are pleased with the program's track record. Lessons learned
from the New Brunswick job corps will be valuable in addressing
the needs of older workers in the country.
I would also like to thank my colleague, the Minister of Labour,
for her efforts and her interest in the continuation of this
funding.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, according to cabinet documents obtained by CTV, Atomic
Energy of Canada wants to fast track the burial of tonnes of
nuclear waste in the Canadian Shield.
The report says that the work should begin as soon as possible
and with as little consultation as is necessary.
Why do the Liberals want to fast track the burial of 30,000
tonnes of nuclear waste and why do they want to restrict public
consultation?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman, in making reference to the report by
CTV News, is simply and plainly wrong.
The government's policy with respect to this matter was
announced on December 3 in our response to the Seaborn report.
The Seaborn report was the culmination of 10 years of
investigation on this question.
We have laid out our way forward which involves both immediate
and long term consultations. The document is there on the
Internet and it has been there since December 3.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not talking about the documents on the Internet,
we are talking about confidential cabinet documents.
Things change over time. The cabinet itself has ordered that
public consultation be restricted. If there is nothing to hide,
why does the minister want to fast track this project? Why does
he not want public consultation?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the allegations in the gentleman's preamble are
absolutely and plainly false.
The document that is the government's policy is the December 3
response to the Seaborn report. It lays out an extensive pattern
of consultation by me, by my department, by the government and by
the waste disposal agency. It is all there in a very public,
open and transparent way. That is the government's policy. The
gentleman and CTV News are wrong.
* * *
1445
THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
International Women's Day and women are the lowest paid workers
in the public service and the Liberal government is trying to
keep it that way.
It has denied them pay equity. It froze their wages for six
years. This wage freeze created a surplus in the pension fund
and now the Liberal government is raiding the surplus. These are
not gold plated pensions. The average woman with 20 years of
service only gets $9,600 a year from her pension. The government
should be a model employer.
Does the Treasury Board president think he is setting a good
example for the private sector by stomping on pay equity and
raiding the public pension plan surplus?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal government was the first government to introduce a
law which gave pay equity to women in 1979 and we have kept to
it. We have already paid out over a billion dollars to make sure
that pay equity was implemented in the federal system.
We have in our law extended pay equity to federally legislated
enterprises. The federal government, and in particular the
Liberal government, has always been favourable to women and it is
trying to continue to create justice in the system.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Treasury Board president and the Liberal government are
unrepentant. They have lost all credibility with public service
workers, particularly women.
First the government agreed to a joint pension management and
investment board. Now it has flip-flopped and is shutting the
workers out of any say in managing their own pension.
The flip-flop smacks of 1950s patriarchy. Most of the workers
who rely on this pension fund are women. The Liberal
government's attitude seems to be that women cannot or should not
manage their own money. This attitude has no place in the 1990s.
Can the President of the Treasury Board explain why he thinks
public servants need big brother to manage their pensions?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately my colleague in her preamble stated things that are
not in parallel with reality.
In fact it is the government itself that proposed to have joint
management of the pension fund and it was ready to introduce a
law to do this. However, the unions were not prepared to take
the risk, to share the risk with the employer in a future pension
fund and I have left on the table the possibility of having joint
management of the pension fund with the unions.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILD TAX BENEFIT
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
Last fall we learned in the Department of Finance's economic and
financial update that, in four years' time, inflation will have
eaten $665 million away from the child tax benefit.
With the budget now presented, is it not fair to say that,
through inflation, low income families will in fact have lost
$365 million net in four years' time?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the past two years, we have increased the benefit by $1.8
billion. This year, we have added another $300 million.
That certainly compensates for inflation, and much more.
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, despite what
the minister has said, the real value of the national child
benefit, vital assistance to many low income families in Canada,
which include many single mothers, continues to shrink as the
result of inflation.
This is particularly true since, in two years' time, inflation
will have totally wiped out the increase in the latest budget.
How does the minister intend to offset the losses thus incurred
by Canadian families?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately, the member's figures are questionable.
In the past two years, we have added over $2.1 billion. That
compensates more than amply for inflation.
* * *
CANADA-PALESTINE RELATIONS
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade.
The minister is just back from a mission to the Middle East,
during which he spent some time in the territories under
administration by the Palestinian Authority.
Could the minister share his impressions with us and tell us
what Canada intends to do to enhance its relationship with the
Palestinians?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to start by thanking the hon. member for his
interest. A new page has been turned in the history of
Canada-Palestine relations.
1450
The Palestinians are planning their future and Canada intends to
help them do so. In particular, we have signed a framework
agreement to facilitate trade exchanges, knowing that peace and
prosperity are linked.
* * *
[English]
NATURAL DISASTERS
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, prior to the 1997 federal election and during the
Manitoba flood Liberals were handing out $5,000 cheques to flood
victims. Now, 18 months after the election and after the flood,
this government is demanding the return of these funds. Why?
Are these victims supposed to wait for another federal election
with empty Liberal promises?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague misunderstands the situation completely.
These were accountable advances. Up to $5,000 in money from the
Government of Canada was put into the hands of each person who
needed assistance. When they were given the money there was a
signed statement saying that it was an accountable advance and
that it would be repaid.
Almost 2,000 people were helped in Manitoba. To date 1,700
have come to an agreement with the Government of Canada. Two
hundred are in the process of coming to an agreement and we are
working with another hundred, hoping to come to an agreement
quickly.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN FORCES
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian forces have failed in their attempt to fully integrate
women into their ranks, according to the Canadian Human Rights
Commission. At the moment, women represent only 10.8% of the
army, only 3.1% in the combat units and there is not one woman
general.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. What is he
waiting for before taking action? Is he waiting for the
commission to cite the officers of the Canadian forces for contempt
of court in the light of his failure to rectify the situation?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recognize that change has been slow,
but it is accelerating. This government is solidly committed to
the current course that will involve the full integration of
women into the Canadian forces.
I might add that the 10.8% is the second highest of the NATO
countries, but I believe we can do more in terms of being able to
give women every opportunity to join whatever part of the
Canadian forces they wish, and considerable progress is being
made in that regard.
* * *
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this past
Saturday farmers were demanding the resignations of both the
agriculture and the wheat board ministers because neither
attended a farm rally in Regina. This no-show is in sharp
contrast to last Monday's announcement when the minister of
agriculture said that it was a great day for Canadian farmers.
Saskatchewan and Manitoba farmers attending the rally disagree,
saying that AIDA stands for “another insulting deceptive
announcement”.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House why the
government could not be bothered to send one representative from
its 155 member caucus to explain this program to prairie farmers?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on this particular weekend the minister of agriculture
was leaving for a trade mission to Japan. In my own case, I was
in Washington on Saturday talking with Canadian embassy officials
about access to U.S. grain markets for Canadian grain supplies
and heading off additional trade disputes.
The organizers of the committee made it absolutely clear that
the only persons who would be acceptable in terms of representing
the government would be the minister of agriculture or myself.
Unfortunately, in the circumstances, both of us were fighting for
farmers elsewhere.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, on February
26 Human Resources Development Canada announced $750,000 for
Joval International clothing recylcer of Toronto to relocate in
Liverpool, Nova Scotia. Considering ACOA's recent losses of $2
million in two Bathurst textile companies, can the minister
responsible for human resources development explain why his
department would fund a company that will compete directly with
the long established Nova Scotia clothing outfit, Frenchy's,
which presently employs over 125 people across Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member made remarks about the textile industry
in New Brunswick.
He has to understand that while there are some hit and misses
with the system, basically we have been very successful.
1455
I have to tell the hon. member that in the province of New
Brunswick in the last decade the textile industry has increased
five times, going from $60 million to $300 million. That is a
success.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police recently announced
that it would suspend training at its Regina training academy
until further notice. My question is for the solicitor general.
The RCMP is our national police force. Canadians want to know
how we will provide training for our future police recruits.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all areas of government, including the
RCMP, had to deal with the financial mess which this government
inherited when it took power.
Because our Prime Minister was able to put us back on a proper
financial track, remove our deficit and work on the debt, I am
pleased to indicate that training will resume at the depot in
Regina on April 6.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier in question period the Minister of Finance
referred to it as a problem. Before the problem can be fixed the
minister must acknowledge that discrimination exists.
Would the finance minister not admit that Canadian tax law
discriminates against single income, two parent families? Would
he not agree that the discrimination exists, yes or no?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I do recognize is that we have a progressive tax
system and, as well, we tax on an individual basis.
The government also recognizes that it has, in each of its
budgets, the responsibility for government to partner with
parents in the raising of their children, and we intend to do
that.
That is why we brought in caregiver credits. That is why we
brought in the child tax credits. That is why we brought in the
prenatal nutrition program. That is why this matter is being
referred to the House of Commons finance committee.
* * *
CANADA MARINE ACT
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as predicted by the Reform Party, Liberal insider Merv
Russell has been appointed director of the new Halifax port
authority.
Old Merv is not going to be lonely because the transport
minister also appointed Liberal playmates Al Abraham Jr., Elaine
Gordon and Gregor Fraser.
The new Canada Marine Act is supposed to devolve control of
seaports to local stakeholders. Why are Liberal connections so
important for federally appointed directors to the Halifax port
authority?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, positions under the Canada Marine Act or the seven
positions of the port authorities are nominated in consultation
with users. The names that he just raised came through that
process.
Mr. Russell served as the previous chair. He served with
distinction and was nominated by one of the user groups. It is
obvious that he would be a choice for the new chairman. He was
not appointed by us as chairman, he was elected by the new board.
* * *
[Translation]
REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, ten years after
the establishment of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive
Technologies, Canada is the only country still without a clear
policy regulating the use of medically assisted human
reproductive technologies.
How does the Minister of Health explain that, after all this
time, the only standard in the matter is a voluntary moratorium,
whose effectiveness is not measurable?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the
member indicated, we established this voluntary moratorium a few
years ago.
In the last parliament, we introduced Bill C-47. At the end of
that parliament, we had begun consultations to determine the
best way to proceed. We will act when we are ready.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the multimillion dollar Seaborn panel on nuclear fuel waste
recommends that a management agency be established that is at
arm's length from industry. However, this Liberal government
ignored the panel and set up a fast track process, including an
industry-based waste management organization.
This is completely contrary to the panel's recommendation.
1500
When will the government commit to establishing an independent
waste management body that protects our public and environmental
safety?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in our response to the Seaborn report we agreed with the
vast majority of Seaborn's recommendations. He did recommend a
waste management authority that would be in the nature of a
federal crown corporation.
It was our view in the response that we published last December
that the ownership responsibility for that waste belongs with
those who produced it. Accordingly we believe it is more
appropriate if the responsibility for the agency rests with the
producers and the owners of the waste, subject explicitly to the
oversight and regulatory authority of the Government of Canada.
* * *
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Nova
Scotia economy has been devastated by the serious downturn in the
fishery, the financial crisis within the agricultural sector, and
most recently by the closing of Cape Breton's Devco mines. The
Liberal government's response has been to reduce funding for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency by $40 million.
Could the minister responsible for ACOA explain why the
government is turning its back on Atlantic Canadians?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to have a closer look at
these figures.
Basically the ACOA program is made up of a core program and a
non-core program. The money that he is talking about is
essentially the sunsetting of some TAGS programs and other
programs such as the infrastructure program. We have also saved
over $3 million in running the organization. I think that is
pretty good.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table in both official languages a number of order in
council appointments which were recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (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 six petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
SEXUAL OFFENDERS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have several petitions to present. The most important one
indicates that between April 14, 1997 and February 1998, ten
months, four sexual assaults took place in the Abbotsford area.
All four were committed by residents of the Sumas Correctional
Centre. At least the last sexual assault was committed by a
dangerous repeat offender with 63 prior convictions.
The petitioners are alarmed to see that 28 offenders walked away
in the last eight months, an average of 3.5 per month from
February 9, 1998 to September.
1505
They ask that parliament enact legislation to ensure that Sumas
Community Correctional Centre officials will have the right to
refuse violent, repeat and dangerous offenders who could pose a
danger to society, and that habitual violent offenders and sexual
perpetrators should not be allowed to reside at Sumas Centre any
longer.
The next petition I have contains 1,500 signatures. It asks
that everyone who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is
guilty of an indictable offence or an offence of punishment on
summary conviction and is liable for a first offence to
imprisonment for not less than seven days, for a second offence
to imprisonment for not more than fourteen days, and for each
subsequent offence to imprisonment for not less than ninety days.
The final petition I have is in addition to another 7,500
signatures, making a total of 15,000 signatures from sincere and
concerned citizens from the Fraser Valley and beyond.
They ask that reasonable action be taken promptly by government
and that parliament enact legislation to ensure that the Sumas
Community Correctional Centre's officials have the right to
refuse violent repeat and dangerous offenders who could pose a
danger to society and that habitual violent offenders and sexual
perpetrators should not be allowed to reside at Sumas Centre any
longer.
It is about time the government took action on this matter.
[Translation]
BILL C-68
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present
two petitions to the House.
The first one, which was circulated in the riding of Beauce, is
from Claude Gilbert and concerns Bill C-68.
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition, also circulated in the riding of Beauce, is from André
Grégoire and concerns pay equity.
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present today the first of a series of petitions
collected by Kawartha Ploughshares, a peace group in my riding.
They point out that whereas sanctions, far from helping to
destroy the oppressive government of Saddam Hussein, have
actually strengthened it and destroyed any useful opposition
since instead of struggling for their rights the civilian
population has had to struggle for survival.
They therefore call on parliament to strongly appeal to the
United Nations, the United States and Britain for a rejection of
any further military action against Iraq and call for a serious
attempt at peace negotiations with Iraq and its neighbours.
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the constituents of Longueuil, who believe sincerely in the
equality of men and women and in justice being done, I have the
honour on this International Women's Day to table, and more
importantly to support, a petition calling on the federal
government to withdraw its appeal against the public service pay
equity decision and to give effect to the court ruling that it
pay its employees what it owes them.
This petition is the first in a series that my colleagues in the
Bloc Quebecois will be tabling this week. I am also tabling the
same petition for my colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert.
[English]
MARRIAGE
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the several hundred signators to a petition from Prince
George—Bulkley Valley pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an
act to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act, so as
to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female. I agree with this
petition.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I have two petitions to present. The first petition is
signed by a number of Canadians including from my own riding of
Mississauga South on the subject of human rights.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world,
particularly in countries such as Indonesia. They also
acknowledge that Canada continues to be recognized
internationally as champions of human rights.
Therefore they call on parliament to continue to speak out
against human rights abuses around the world and to seek to bring
to justice those responsible for such abuses.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, is on the matter of public safety
officers.
The petitioners would like to draw the attention of the House
that police officers and firefighters are required to place their
lives at risk on a daily basis as they execute their duties and
that when one of them loses their life in the line of duty we all
mourn that loss.
1510
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to establish a
public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of
families of public safety officers who are killed in the line of
duty.
FRESHWATER
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of
constituents who point out a whole number of concerns they have
regarding the export of freshwater.
They make a number of suggestions on what the Government of
Canada and parliament ought to consider.
PROPERTY OFFENCES
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 189
Canadians, mostly residing in the districts of Edgeley, Edenwold
and Fort Qu'Appelle, just east of Regina.
Their formerly very peaceful and crime free rural area is being
plagued by break-ins, sometimes while householders are at home.
They say that whereas break and enter often involves serious loss
or damage and whereas serious sentences for property offences are
ordinarily minimal, especially when the offenders are minors,
they call upon parliament to recommend more stringent sentencing
for property crimes and to make laws requiring those convicted of
vandalism and/or break and enter and theft to make financial
restitution for damages.
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the people of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, I have the
honour to table a petition asking that the government withdraw
its appeal of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision on
equal pay within the public service and that it implement that
decision without further delay.
This petition goes along with those presented by my colleagues
in the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 164 and 181.
.[Text]
Question No. 164—Mr. Jean Dubé:
Can the Department of Human Resources Development provide
clarification on a recent incident in one of its offices, in St.
Clair, British Columbia, where a francophone employee was
apparently prevented from replying in French to a francophone
client?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): The Government of Canada strongly supports
the rights of francophones outside Quebec to get service in their
own language, where there is a population that needs it.
When Human Resources Development Canada, HRDC, began to
consolidate its offices in 1997, it consulted with the Vancouver
community to see where and how they would like the department to
set up a bilingual office.
A review of the most appropriate location for the provision of
bilingual services was also needed. A town hall meeting was held
in French to provide an opportunity for the francophone community
to provide input on service consolidation plans and especially
which office shold be responsible for providing bilingual
services. Invitations were extended to all francophone
associations in the greater Vancouver area and efforts were made
to ensure participants were representatives of all HRDC's client
groups. The Sinclair office's bilingual staff were also invited.
Due to the length of time that has elapsed since the meeting was
held, it is not known whether staf from the Sinclair office were in
attendance. However, all participants attending the town hall
meeting expressed the preference that bilingual services should
be provided in a full service Human Resources Centre of Canada,
HRCC, and their choice was HRCC Vancouver. Also, a study of the
demographics of the francophone population clearly showed that
the majority of francophones were living in the HRCC Vancouver
area.
Based on the process outlined above, bilingual service was
trasferred to HRCC Vancouver in October 1997. Advertisements
were placed in the local French paper and on radio station
CBUF-FM to communicate where bilingual service was available. A
letter was also sent to all francophone clients to inform them of
this move.
There are currently 20 points of service designated as bilingual
service sites in British Columbia. Nine of these are in
Vancouver. Of the nine, there is only one HRCC which is fully
bilingual. Along with the one bilingual HRCC in Vancouver, the
infocentres, Labour Canada, income security and regional offices
are designated bilingual.
In the case of the Sinclair office, even though the office is
designated unilingual English, employees are encouraged by
management to respond in the language of the client when the need
arises. This ensures that quality services are offered to all
clients. It is HRDC's policy to designate bilingual positions in
unilingual offices if the work entails services that are to be
provided in both languages. This policy is in accordance with
official languages regulations. In the incident mentioned by
Radio Canada, this policy was regrettably not followed.
Question No. 181—Miss Deborah Grey:
Regarding the National Philatelic Centre of Canada Post: (a)
is Canada Post planning to issue a stamp in honour of Queen
Elizbeth and Prince Philip's 50th wedding anniversary; and (b)
is Canada Post planning to issue a stamp in honour of Prince
Charles' 50th birthday?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): (a) The 50th wedding anniversary of Her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth and His Royal Highness Prince Philip occurred in
1997. As Canada Post commemorates anniversaries in the year in
which they occur, the corporation does not intend to issue a stamp
on that subject in 1999. However, the corporation issued a new
stamp in January 1999, bearing the image of Her majesty, to
correspond with the new basic lettermail rate of 46¢.
(b) The Sovereign is the only living person who can be the sole
subject of a postage stamp.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Speaker: With your permission, I shall return to petitions
with the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic.
* * *
PETITIONS
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of constituents of Frontenac—Mégantic, who believe
sincerely in male-female equality and in justice, I have the
honour to table a petition demanding that the federal government
withdraw its appeal against the public service pay equity
decision and give effect to the court ruling that it pay its
employees what it owes them.
This petition goes with the ones presented by my colleagues from
Longueuil and Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1515
[English]
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-55, an act respecting
advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers,
as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Group No. 1.
The Speaker: The astute and erudite hon. member for
Ottawa—Vanier had seven minutes remaining.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, prior to Oral Question
Period, I was speaking to the bill under consideration, Bill
C-55, an act to protect the Canadian periodical industry.
I mentioned that, contrary to what certain members of the Reform
Party were saying, our neighbours to the south, the Americans,
do not have the right, with impunity as our colleagues were
indicating, to impose sanctions or to retaliate, because they
too are party to international trade agreements, such as NAFTA
and the WTO.
There are rules and procedures, and if the Americans wanted to
retaliate, they too would have to comply, despite what the
Reform Party members are saying.
I also mentioned that we on the government side are not prepared
to hand certain sectors of our industry priority over others.
The government does not share the opinion of some members of the
official opposition who do not consider Canadian culture worth
fighting for. Both agriculture, which is vital to our economy,
as I mentioned, and Canada's culture, which is vital to the
well-being of our psyche, must be protected.
As I was saying, one feeds the body, the other, the mind.
Unfortunately, our Reform colleagues are not quite as concerned
as they might be about the food for the mind that Canada's
culture represents.
I would also like to take them up on another mistaken notion.
Two weeks ago, with colleagues from the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage, I visited Thunder Bay and the western cities
of Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Vancouver and White Horse. My
colleague, who is the official opposition critic, toured the
eastern part of the country with the other half of the standing
committee.
In the western leg of the trip, the Canadian public was very
outspoken and supportive in its comments about the need for this
bill, once again contrary to what Reform Party members have
said.
Canadians generally are very aware of the importance of having
strong Canadian cultural industries that are able to compete
with other countries.
This brings me to another point that our colleagues are unable
or perhaps unwilling to understand.
We are not talking about undue protection. We are talking about
drawing up ground rules that are fair to everyone.
[English]
We are not here suggesting that our magazine industry cannot
compete, as members of the Reform Party might be suggesting. It
is not that at all. It can and has done so over the last 30
years. Our industry has developed quite well because we have had
a level playing field in place and we insist on maintaining such
a level playing field.
It is not level when one competitor has an incredible advantage
of having overhead costs that 70% less than the overhead costs of
the Canadian publishers. That is the essence of a split-run
edition. They cover the costs of preparing the edition. They
come into a country. They take out the pages that carry ads and
which are replaced by other ads. They can undercut the market
greatly without necessarily adding anything of any significance
or value to the Canadian cultural aspect of what these people are
trying to do. In most instances that is what has happened. It is
not a fair or level playing field.
Under a fair and equitable competitive system our magazine
industry will compete with any other in the world. It is not
fair if its competitors have a 70% overhead cost advantage.
1520
The other thing the Reform Party seems to forget is that it is
indeed a unique relationship in terms of Canada and the U.S. and
the magazine industry.
Eighty to ninety per cent of the magazines exported by our
American neighbours are exported in one country only, Canada,
because of the proximity and in a number of provinces similarity
of language. Therefore there is a great deal of affinity in the
market. That does not seem to satisfy them. They want more.
They control over 50% of our market. They have 80% of our shelf
space. It is not enough. They want more. When the Americans say
“if you do this we will do that so back off”, Reformers say
“we do not want to protect, we will back off and the 6,000
people who happen to work in this industry, too bad for them, so
sorry, so sad, we are not prepared to do that”.
We will stand by the magazine industry in this country as we
have in the past. Members think this bill is exclusively from
the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It is not. Do not make that
mistake. It is a bill supported by the government and members on
this side of the House and we will see soon enough on that.
An hon. member: And three other parties.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you to my colleague, and three
other parties on the other side of the House.
I conclude with a question. I wish anyone who has thought about
this debate, this bill, this issue would ask themselves this
question and answer it fair and honestly. It is a very simply
question.
Which foreign publication, which American magazine, is not
allowed into this country? I dare any member of the House to
find a foreign or an American publication to be more precise that
is not allowed in this country. They will not. It is a totally
open market. We are not restricting any American publication or
magazine from coming into the country. Canadians can buy any
American magazine they wish to buy on almost any news stand and
yet that seems not to be good enough for the members opposite.
Why?
The Deputy Speaker: Before we resume debate I wonder if
we could now revert, with the consent of the House, to
applications for emergency debate so that I can deal with a
matter raised by the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River. Is
that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
BILL C-55
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
from what we just heard from the hon. member from across the way,
he and his government basically missed the point.
My application for an emergency debate deals with the issue of
risk this government is putting Canadians at with Bill C-55. In
fact, the faster it fast tracks this piece of legislation, the
greater the risk.
I believe a billion dollars worth of retaliation will impact
hugely right across this country, probably up to 45,000 jobs.
This is from a paper on international trade. I can submit this
later on.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has reviewed the letter
submitted by the hon. member in support of his argument that
there should be an emergency debate on this subject and has
concluded that it does not meet the exigencies of the standing
order at this time. Accordingly it is not permitted.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-55, an act respecting
advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers,
as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Group No. 1.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have been listening all day to a lot of passionate debate on both
sides of the House about Bill C-55, although frankly a lot of the
comments have very little to do with Bill C-55.
The debate seems to have taken some directions far beyond what
was ever contemplated by Bill C-55.
1525
We have been hearing the Reform Party trying to strike fear into
the hearts of Canadians that if we have the temerity or the gall
to do anything to protect sovereignty we will be smashed by our
American neighbours, that tanks are going to roll across the
border and devastate our steel industry and our plastic industry
as if we are supposed to cower at this great force, that we do
not have the wherewithal to look after industries that we care
about; not only industries we care about but our Canadian
cultural sovereignty.
I asked for an opportunity to speak to this today because I have
always seen myself as a fiercely proud Canadian nationalist,
almost too far that way sometimes I have been told. I am very
proud and I really regret the fact that this country has moved
away from some of the positions we used to take in terms of
looking after Canadian industries.
I have been reading a book recently, 1967, by Pierre
Berton. He talks about Canada as it was in 1967 and the
government of the day. It talks about leaders of that time,
politicians like Walter and Duncan Gordon and Paul Martin Sr.,
people willing to take real steps to something about the foreign
takeover of our industries.
At that time it was not seen as frivolous or silly to talk about
limiting the amount of foreign ownership of certain industries
that were key to Canadians. I was very pleased to see those
moves in those days. I was too young at that time to really
appreciate them. Certainly in recent years, as we see that
school of thought slipping away, I am looking back with some
regret that we have somehow lost that.
When I hear a debate like we heard today that we cannot make a
move as minor and insignificant as trying to look after this one
small aspect of our cultural and artistic industry, if we cannot
make a move like Bill C-55 without worrying about being squashed
like a grape by this steamroller to the south of us, we really
have lost our ability to chart our own destiny as a country.
Bill C-55 is not a broad sweeping interference with the free
market. For those hon. members who really advocate the free
market and the free hand of the market, et cetera, this is not an
interference of that ability for industries to conduct
themselves. This is not state intervention in any way that will
offend anyone. It is a very minor detail that recognizes that
arts and culture are as much of an industry and as much of an
engine for economic growth as any of the other smokestack
industries or the high tech industries we are fond of promoting
and encouraging.
The member for Kamloops spoke very well about industries like
the film industry and how we would be crazy not to do all we can
to cultivate and nurture that burgeoning new industry in B.C.
The film industry in Manitoba now is a $100 million a year
industry. The member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul can testify to
this. Two years ago it was $13 million a year. Last year it was
$50 million and this year it is $100 million, with a new sound
stage being built and new crews being trained to push that limit
even further.
This is the kind of thing, if we really want to talk about
growing the economic base in areas where we have real opportunity
and real potential, the arts, culture and heritage, that we
cannot ignore. We heard about jobs being bantered about here and
possible job loss if we take the step of Bill C-55. What about
jobs lost or lost opportunity if we do not act in this regard?
Community colleges in British Columbia have started 22 new
apprenticeship programs in the film industry. That is brand new.
That is a whole new growth area, not only new jobs but new
training.
We always used to wonder what a gaffer does. At the end of
movies when the credits roll we see best boy, gaffer, key grip
and jobs like that. Those are all apprenticeable trades,
legitimate career positions, as are the electricians, the
carpenters, the set designers and the lighting guys.
It is a huge growth area. B.C. is looking forward in that regard
and is welcoming the jobs which go along with that.
1530
What we have been hearing people talk about more than Bill C-55
is free trade. Our party is not crazy about free trade. We were
cautious about going into liberalized trade agreements that may—
An hon. member: You were fearmongering.
Mr. Pat Martin: A member just said that we were
fearmongering about free trade. In fact, our predictions came
true. It is not fearmongering any more. It is like slanderous
and slander when it is the truth.
In actual fact, our worst fears were realized. We watched half a
million good jobs flow south of the border. We heard that great
flushing sound Ross Perot used to talk about. Whoosh, the jobs
went right past us. We were not wrong about that. We were
absolutely right.
Fortunately we intervened recently on the MAI. Everybody in this
room except for our party, this whole House of Commons was
willing to walk blindly into the new multilateral agreement on
investment. Thank goodness somebody did sound the alarm on that.
Now that the dust has settled on that liberalized trade
agreement called the MAI, we know what the real motivation was.
The people who were pushing the MAI said there is a surplus of
democracy in the world today that is interfering with the free
movement of capital. The global capitalists were worried about a
surplus of democracy, meaning that people like us, those of us in
this House are a nuisance and interfere with corporations doing
exactly what they want to do when they want to do it.
That is exactly what we have heard today from the Reform Party.
Reform members have been saying that this House does not have the
right to make rules to look after our own well-being because the
corporate sector in the United States will punish us. I am not
prepared to accept that. As a fiercely proud Canadian
nationalist, I will never accept that.
It is our duty to do all we can to take charge of our own
destiny and to do what we think is right in this country, by
majority vote. Not everybody will always agree all the time with
the right course to take. In this example, Bill C-55, that is
pretty clear. Four parties out of five, and 250 votes out of 301
say the right thing to do is to protect our cultural sovereignty,
to protect our arts and culture community, our heritage
industries.
The Reform Party is more interested in the Heritage Front than
it is in the heritage industry. The only time I ever hear of
heritage associated with the Reform Party is by some of its
members who are leaders in the Heritage Front. It has nothing to
do with arts and culture, does it?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would suggest that clearly untrue and slanderous
allegations are unparliamentary. I ask you to have the member
withdraw those remarks.
The Deputy Speaker: It sounds as though it is a matter
for debate. I think the member has not said any slanderous thing
that I have heard.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about
free trade agreements and fearmongering about the Americans
beating us up if we pass Bill C-55. We have not heard very much
about the merits of Bill C-55 although the parliamentary
secretary has just done a pretty good job to try to outline those
in a fairly balanced way. That is the only balance I have heard
today in listening to the debate.
Our own critic in this area, the member for Dartmouth, clearly
pointed out that the NDP supports Bill C-55. She was quite clear
that she would not accept the Reform Party amendments. Her
recommendations to us were to reject the Reform Party amendments
because they simply dismantle Bill C-55 piece by piece by piece.
If we are proud of our Canadian culture and our Canadian
heritage, if we are fiercely proud Canadian nationalists as
everybody in this room had better be, then we should be passing
Bill C-55 and we should be voting down any amendments to the
contrary such as those put forward by the Reform Party.
1535
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House today in support of
Bill C-55. I would encourage all of my colleagues in the House of
Commons to support this bill unanimously.
Bill C-55 sustains an important cultural objective that has been
in place for three decades: to ensure the availability of
information, stories and images in the magazine sector that
reflect and inform Canadian society. Bill C-55 delivers on this
objective by preventing unfair competition in our advertising
services market which, if left unchecked, would put the Canadian
publishers that provide Canadian stories to Canadian readers out
of business.
If U.S. publishers could enter our advertising market, which
they have not had access to for over three decades, they would
dump advertising services. This is because they would have
virtually no costs in that market, would achieve profit margins
of up to 80% and would therefore heavily discount advertising
rates in order to capture market share.
Canadian manufacturers of goods, including those in sectors that
have been identified as potential targets of U.S. retaliation,
have remedies available to them to prevent dumping. Canadian
steel producers for example regularly exercise their rights under
trade agreements by bringing anti-dumping cases. Magazine
publishers do not have that option because so far there are no
dumping rules for services. But Canada does have rights under our
trade agreements to take measures in support of cultural
industries and to regulate access to our advertising market in
the magazine sector, the only available means to prevent unfair
competition.
In February at a luncheon of the Broadcast Executive Society,
Michael McCabe, president and chief executive officer of the
Canadian Association of Broadcasters, called for support of the
foreign publishers advertising services act. Mr. McCabe's
comments about the current U.S. assault of this bill merits
repeating. Mr. McCabe stated as follows:
The current American assault on the Minister of Canadian
Heritage's efforts to sustain a Canadian magazine industry is
just the leading edge of a broader assault to come. That's why
it's so important.
We have to be able to maintain in this country a set of cultural
policies that ensure that we can tell our own stories to our own
people, and to others. The American proposition that it's just
business and there should be a level playing field is a myth—and
a dangerous myth—given their size and market power. We, and
other small countries, have to insist on the freedom to make the
policies we need, to support our own cultural existence.
Magazines are just the beginning. We can't fail at this. If we
do, it will damage not only our businesses, but our country.
The U.S. claims that Bill C-55 is protectionist and precludes
its cultural products from entering Canadian markets. That is
not the case at all. In fact, foreign competition dominates the
Canadian cultural market. According to the report of the Cultural
Industries Sectoral Advisory Group on International Trade which
was released on February 17, 1999, foreign firms and products
account for the following: 45% of book sales in Canada; 81%
of English language consumer magazines on Canadian newsstands
and over 63% of magazine circulation revenue; 79%, or over $910
million, of the retail sales of tapes, CDs, concerts, merchandise
and sheet music; 85%, or $165 million, of the revenues from film
distribution in Canada; and between 94% and 97% of screen time in
Canadian theatres.
While Canada believes its citizens should have access to foreign
cultural goods, the government also recognizes that we need space
for our own voice. Our culture is an integral part of who we
are. Sharing stories and ideas and creating a better
understanding among people in Canada is an effective way to build
a healthy multicultural society. The government as steward of
our national identity has a duty to promote cultural activities
that help build a sense of community.
Cultural products are not simply commodities that can be
packaged and sold. Cultural goods and services are different
from the goods and services of other industries and should be
treated differently.
However, Canada is not alone in its efforts to promote culture
and cultural industries.
Like Canada, many countries provide direct support for their
cultural industries.
1540
For example, the European Union's media II program provides
grants and loans to promote the development of film production
projects aimed at the European market.
The United Kingdom provides subsidies for a wide range of
artistic activities through the arts councils which are funded by
lotteries, while the British Film Institute provides direct
grants for film production and exhibitions.
France's Centre National de la Cinématographie uses special
cinema taxes to support film production. Any producer of
fiction, animation, cultural shows or documentaries whose
programs have been broadcast by French television automatically
receives a grant from the country's film and television industry
support fund.
The Swedish Film Institute uses a tax on cinema tickets and
video rentals as well as state funds to make film production
grants.
Interestingly enough, the United States directly supports
everything from literature to drama through the National
Endowment for the Arts.
We are at a critical juncture in the history of magazine
publishing in Canada as we face the choice between caving in to
American pressure tactics or maintaining our right to continue
the longstanding policy of ensuring that Canadians can choose to
read their own magazines as well as other magazines from around
the world.
Magazine publishing has never been an easy business in Canada
even without the unfair competition of split-run editions of
American magazines. The scale of our market, the competition for
readers from American magazines, and the negative impact on our
advertising revenues of the spillover advertising that Canadians
see in American magazines have all meant that Canadian publishers
will survive only if they produce quality magazines that
Canadians want to read and at the same time operate at peak
efficiency.
Canadian magazine publishers have called on this government to
provide an environment of fair competition, a level playing field
so they can continue to have the incentive to invest. Fair
competition cannot exist when our split-run competitors have
costs less than half of ours and no Canadian content.
Bill C-55 is the only measure that has been identified that is
effective in preventing unfair split-run competition and also is
consistent with our trade agreements. Bill C-55 does not violate
the NAFTA or any other international trade obligation. It has
never been challenged before the WTO or any other dispute
settlement body. Bill C-55 is entirely consistent with our trade
obligations.
Bill C-55 regulates foreign access to the Canadian magazine
advertising services market. It is a services measure. It does
not apply to or affect imports of magazines. As a services
measure, it falls under the GATS. Canada did not offer and the
U.S. did not obtain or pay for access to our advertising services
market in the negotiation of the GATS. Canada therefore has no
obligations and the U.S. has no rights vis-à-vis access to the
market.
U.S. threats of retaliation under NAFTA show that it does not
have a legal case to make. If it did, it would use the WTO
rules, where it started the dispute in the first place, to
challenge Bill C-55. Moreover, under NAFTA the United States
cannot forum shop. The provision for retaliation under the
cultural exemption applies only if the measure would violate an
obligation in the FTA, if not for the exemption. No such
obligation exists. The level of retaliation the U.S. has
threatened is equally illegitimate. The fact that Canada's
previous magazine measures were ruled inconsistent with the GATT
does not mean the new measure would also be ruled inconsistent.
Bill C-55 is completely different from the previous measures.
I would like to conclude with a quote from a recent bulletin of
the Canadian Conference of the Arts which reviewed the importance
of Bill C-55. “We give the last word to President Bill Clinton:
We must enforce our trade laws when imports unlawfully flood our
nation”.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with
everything I have heard today, I must say that I endorse free
trade, not liberalized trade.
1545
I have come to know in my short time here in the House of
Commons, and in my time before that, that it is actually
liberalized trade, not free trade. Free and liberalized are not
the same thing at all. Liberalized means regulated. Liberalized
means subsidized. Liberalized means tampered with and that is
exactly what we have.
For the folks back home I want to describe what is going on
today. We are debating Bill C-55. It is the heritage minister's
attempt to try to control freedom of speech, freedom of
advertising with relation to freedom of speech, and to invite
U.S. retaliation against Canadian industries.
There are 21 clauses in this bill. My Reform colleague has
proposed 21 amendments which would delete each one of the clauses
with regard to the amendments and the changes and whatnot
involved with Bill C-55.
On top of that, there is an amendment that has recently been
added by the minister that would give the minister the power to
decide when the bill will take effect. We all know that is
redundant because the cabinet already decides when a bill will be
proclaimed in law. What the heritage minister indeed is doing in
this particular example is buying herself time because the
government knows this will result in retaliation and it will be
bad for other industries in Canada. As a result, the government
is putting an eject button into its own legislation because it
wants to quickly ram it through the House and then potentially be
able to just eject this thing and have the minister stall on it
so it is not proclaimed. The government already recognizes that
it is bad legislation. I do not know why it is defending it
today. I guess it is a face saving measure.
Not only do I believe in free trade as opposed to liberalized
trade, but I also believe in free speech as opposed to Liberal
speech and talking points, especially those prepared by the
minister and what the backbenchers on the Liberal side are
reading today. I think that Canadian taxpayers and citizens
deserve to know more, and we should have no more Bill C-55.
Let us talk about some of the problems that Bill C-55 can bring
to Canada. U.S. retaliation is one of the things that Bill C-55
can bring. I would like to quote a few statistics and articles
that have been done on this particular issue.
There is $1 billion of trade that is done every day between
Canada and the United States. It is the longest undefended
border in the world. We have had a pretty good relationship,
aside from the war of 1812, but then they were not really our
troops, they were British troops at the time. Canada was formed
in 1867, so it was a bit before our time. However, we have a
pretty good relationship with the United States in terms of
trade.
Bill C-55 would restrict trade. We have already signed an
agreement stating that we would not restrict trade. It was
called the North American Free Trade Agreement. To boot, there
is also the World Trade Organization and some of the agreements
we have made under that auspices.
There have been precedents that have already been set within
those agreements which Bill C-55 would violate. Just to prove
that point, both parties on the two most powerful U.S.
congressional committees are backing the U.S. trade
representative's threat of retaliation.
Across the border to the south we have the two most powerful
committees to deal with, as well as both parties and a
representative of the White House all telling us that if Bill
C-55 goes through there will be retaliation.
This is what we are talking about in terms of the numbers. It
is designed to address about $400 million per year in the
magazine advertising market. In the big picture we have $400
million over an entire year concerning magazine advertising.
There is $1 billion worth of trade per day between our two
countries. Why, hon. members ask, for $400 million and some
smaller fraction of that to be affected by Bill C-55 would we
look to jeopardize $365 billion worth of trade?
1550
Roughly that means that for one-one-thousandth of the amount of
trade we do with the United States we would jeopardize our
trading relationship over something that the World Trade
Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement have
already laid out for us in precedent. It will not stand in terms
of a point of law. It does not make a lot of sense, does it?
What has the U.S. trade representative let us know they would be
potentially looking at in terms of retaliation? They are talking
about steel. Would that not be an interesting scenario? How
fitting it would be for the member from Hamilton who is
advocating the changes to Bill C-55 to have steel hit on by the
U.S. in terms of trade retaliation. The workers in her own
riding, people who are steelworkers in Hamilton, would be
affected by that trade retaliation.
I do not want that and neither does our heritage minister.
Therefore I ask her today to either substantially change this
bill or to get rid of it altogether.
If U.S. representatives decide to retaliate it would only be
fitting that they do so in an industry that is directly related
as closely as possible to the heritage minister's own riding. I
hope that does not happen. That is why I hope she repeals this
bill.
Other commodities which are under threat are textiles, plastics,
lumber and wheat. Those are all big commodities and Canada is an
export nation.
Why would we want to risk our reputation internationally as an
advocate of rules based trade in order to satisfy the whims of
our heritage minister? I do not know why we would want to do
that.
I hope those people in the Liberal caucus will stand up so this
does not happen. I hope that when they ram this bill through
they will make sure that the eject button they are putting into
clause 22 is used and this thing gets shelved so that
steelworkers in Hamilton do not lose their jobs because of the
whims of their own representative in the House of Commons. That
is what I hope happens. I wish they would repeal it altogether.
As a stopgap measure, because they are not willing to admit their
own abuses of trade practices and rules based trade, I hope they
have the decency at least to do that.
Fifty per cent of the magazines purchased in Canada are foreign.
That is another statistic I will throw into the debate. It is
important to temper this whole thing with an understanding of
what is going to be affected.
This is all about an unreasonable limit on fundamental freedoms,
on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It is also a
violation of property rights and freedom of contract.
I am going to touch on some other things that this government
has been going along with in terms of violation of freedom of
speech, violation of property rights and violation of freedom of
contract.
The press has not been in love with the Liberal government of
late because of the whole idea of freedom of speech. It goes
back further than this, but let me list a few examples.
We had APEC. When the Prime Minister and his crew were going
after Terry Milewski and the CBC, the press were not impressed.
That is only fair because the Prime Minister was trying to stifle
freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
We also have the CRTC which suppresses the Canadian identity
from coast to coast to coast in terms of its finagling and
shutting down competition in the cable industry. I could go on
to name a few others.
One of the most egregious violations this government has thought
of yet with regard to the violation of freedom of speech has been
the election gag laws. If there were third parties who wanted to
advocate a position or publish polls during an election, this
government would impose fines or jail them. That is another way
this Liberal government does not like freedom of speech.
The government also uses taxpayers' money on propaganda. It
loves spending money in places where it should not be spent to
advocate how good the government is. This goes to show how out
of touch and elitist this government is when it comes to freedom
of speech. It allows it only when it serves its own ends. Shame
on it. It should repeal Bill C-55.
1555
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is interesting to hear some of the justification that members
opposite seem to be trying to put forward to justify why they are
actually voting against an industry that, by the member's own
admission, generates $400 million in revenue. They trivialize
that. They do not seem to think that is important.
As well, the industry employs over 7,000 people.
We have also heard the argument that somehow Bill C-55 is
against freedom of speech.
I will deal with the first issue, the accusations and comments
about closure, that somehow this government in a heavy-handed way
is shutting down debate.
The previous speaker stated that there are 21 clauses in this
bill and then went on to say that his critic had put forward 21
amendments which would basically cancel out each one of the
clauses.
Does that sound like an attempt to be constructive? Does that
sound like they are putting forward alternative suggestions?
There are 21 clauses and 21 amendments which are contrary to the
entire intent of the bill. It is clearly nothing more than an
attempt by the Reform Party to filibuster, to try to stall
instead of allowing for debate to take place.
I will give the House an example. This is a quote directly from
the government House leader in talking about Reform: “Do they
think this is serious debate or is it stalling?” He went on to
say: “I think most Canadians would agree that 50 speeches and
to still be on clause 1 constitutes stalling”.
Quite clearly they are not interested in getting into why the
Canadian parliament is at the point where it is actually passing
a law that would restrict the open flow of advertising. Why
would we want to do that?
They throw up the threat that the United States is going to
retaliate, as if we should just tuck our nationalistic tails
between our legs and go home. In fact, they make the comment in
a press clipping, saying that Liberals want Reform to roll over
in its opposition to this bill. What in essence we are hearing
from the opposition is that they want the Canadian government,
and by extension the Canadian nation, to roll over to the
Americans.
The member said one thing that is accurate. We have the longest
undefended border in the world. It is a free border, with free
crossings. We have a relationship in trade, to the tune of a
billion dollars a day. We have a relationship in terms of
tourism. How many Canadians own property in the United States?
We have an excellent relationship with them. But are we just to
turn around and say that we do not care that what they are doing
is in our opinion illegal activity that is damaging an industry?
Would we tolerate it for any other industry?
I would suggest that if the fear that is being promulgated by
the Reform Party were to come true and the United States were to
put a tariff or some kind of a sanction on steel products,
clearly that would be against the North American Free Trade
Agreement.
There are mechanisms, solutions and ways of dealing with the
situation. They cannot simply violate that agreement. This bill
does not violate the NAFTA. I do not know how many times we have
to say it.
It is somewhat disturbing to me to hear the false impressions
that are put forward in question period and in debate. They are
impressions that when researched are simply not backed up by the
facts.
1600
I can give an example. If a foreign publication is operating in
this country for over one year it will not be impacted by the
bill. Canadian advertisers are not impacted by the bill. A case
in point would be Reader's Digest, which is currently about
75% Canadian owned. There is no negative impact on Reader's
Digest. Time Magazine is grandfathered by the bill.
Mr. Peter Adams: Grandparented.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Grandparented, I stand corrected by
the member for Peterborough. I thank him very much. The point
of the matter is the minister, the committee and the staff have
taken care to make sure that the actions taken do not reflect
negatively on the industry. For every action the government
takes clearly there is reaction.
Let us assume that the split-run magazines come in. It is very
confusing for my constituents who have called. There have not
been a lot, but basically they have called to say that we cannot
let the Americans put us out of business. I have had none of the
types of calls the Reform Party has referred to in this area.
I want to refer to a hypothetical scenario. If we do not act
and there is no Bill C-55 and all of a sudden I see the critic
standing in his place during question period demanding to know
what the heritage minister will do to protect the $400 million in
trade and to protect the 7,000 jobs, I can just hear the outrage.
If we were to do nothing in this area, I suspect Reformers would
simply, as they often do, switch principles and go at it from the
other side. What do we hear but cries of outrage when we hear
about the potential for or the fear of selling water to the
United States. We hear all kinds of people getting upset and
saying tell them it is not so, that we have to protect Canadian
resources, that we cannot cave in to the Americans, and let them
solve their own problems. On the other hand they say the
Americans will beat us up, punch us in the nose with some trade
sanctions and we will have to bow down to them.
I tried to come up with an analogy that made some sense in
relation to protecting our cultural industries. I think people
will understand that we see the tremendous success in the
entertainment and the media industries of Canadians around the
world.
In the recent music awards something like seven of the top ten
nominations were Canadians, people like Shania Twain and Céline
Dion. How did that happen? How is it that all of a sudden we
have names like those ones, as well as Michael J. Fox and the
late John Candy. One of the great successful music groups in
Europe right now happens to be a group called the Bare Naked
Ladies. I was talking to my brother-in-law the other day. He
said they were playing to packed houses. Other Canadian talent
is the Tragically Hip and James Cameron, the director of
Titanic. The list goes on and on.
Gone are the days when the only two internationally known
Canadian stars were Paul Anka and Robert Goulet, singing a medley
of his hits. Why is it that we see Canadians succeeding? I
think it is because they are tremendously talented people, but I
also think it is because the nation through successive
governments over the years has recognized the need to protect and
ensure Canadian content in print, on the airwaves and in all
aspects of entertainment and media.
A country of 30 million people is producing some of the top
talent in the entire world and is exporting our cultural
capabilities around the world. It truly is an amazing success
story. This is frankly no different. We are ensuring the
protection of this industry with the bill.
Reform is simply opposing it to be obstreperous. I guarantee if
we did not do this it would take the other approach entirely.
1605
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I thought
we had moved on to the second group of motions. I could
certainly continue and address the first group but I have already
spoken. Is it still within the rules that I can speak?
The Deputy Speaker: No, I am afraid the hon. member can
only speak once to a grouping. I know he is looking forward to
moving to Group No. 2.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-55 today.
Who makes policy in Canada? Is it parliament or the U.S.
congress? Shall we as a parliament govern our actions and our
policies based on threats or perceived threats from political
leaders south of the border?
The official opposition would have us move or not move based on
the whims of Americans. Canadians have elected us to do the job.
They have asked us to protect Canada's vital interests. Bill
C-55 is about the survival of our magazine industry. The issue
is about cultural differences.
Americans view culture as a commodity. Certainly our culture
needs support from the entrepreneurial excesses of American
capitalists. Canadian culture is something that needs to be
promoted and enhanced.
Eighty per cent of our population lives within 150 kilometres of
the U.S. border. We are subject to a barrage of American
entertainment through films, magazines and television. American
entertainment has become what the English language has become
around the world. It has become universal. It has become the
mode by which people listen and take American values.
Our culture is what defines us as a nation, but it is difficult
being so close to a population which is 25 times our size. The
Americans see culture simply as an entertainment commodity with a
bottom line. Clearly they are trying to expand that bottom line
in terms of their share of the international market.
Canada must and needs to create policies which maintain our
cultural existence and in this regard the bill will assist in
maintaining that objective.
We have over 1,000 publishers producing over 1,400 Canadian
titles in Canada and 561 consumer magazines with a total
circulation of over 47 million. We have 826 Canadian business
publications with a total circulation of over 11 million.
Twenty-four million Canadians over the age of 12 read one or more
major Canadian consumer magazines annually. The industry employs
5,200 full time and 1,700 part time people. Twenty thousand
additional jobs are dependent on magazine publishers. We are
looking at a total annual revenue of over $1 billion.
Canada has maintained policy measures designed to provide
Canadians with distinctive vehicles for cultural expression.
Although we welcome foreign publications, we have maintained a
policy to promote our own cultural industries. With the adoption
of Bill C-55, U.S. magazines will continue to be welcomed into
this country. They account for 80% of newsstand sales presently.
Bill C-55 is about regulating foreign access to the Canadian
advertising services market. This issue is very different from
wheat or coal or steel. It is about being Canadian. It is about
providing a sustainable and visibly Canadian periodical industry
by ensuring the advertising revenues needed to create content is
available. One page of advertising equals one page of content.
Some would argue that the bill would cause a trade war. Canada
is obliged by trade treaties to allow free trade in goods, but we
have never agreed and will never agree to give foreigners free
access to the Canadian advertising services market. As Canadians
we must and will defend our rights as an independent and
sovereign state to develop policies which support our domestic
cultural expression. We will and are defending those rights.
1610
Bill C-55 maintains a Canadian policy that has been in place for
three decades. It aims to ensure the environment in which our
Canadian identity can be maintained. What is at stake is the
future of over 450 or so smaller and more specialized Canadian
periodicals that fill an essential niche in the country's
culture. So-called editions would kill the prospect for young
publishers, for young editors who might want to set up their own
magazine.
Fundamental to this policy has been the belief that Canadians
must continue to have the opportunity to read about their own
stories, their values and their interests. In order for this to
continue Canadian publishers must be able to operate in a fair
and competitive environment. The bill will ensure that Canadian
magazine publishers have fair access to Canadian advertising
services revenues. Without those revenues they would be unable
to provide readers with the broad range of Canadian publications
currently available.
This is not a NAFTA issue. The bill does not violate NAFTA or
other international trade obligations. It has never been
challenged before the World Trade Organization or any other
dispute settlement body, for that matter. Comments about trade
war are not well founded. Canada and the United States have the
most successful trading relationship with more than 95% of our
goods and services moving freely across the border. If the
Americans do not like the provisions of the bill, they can always
turn to international dispute settlement provisions.
Early this year the Prime Minister stated:
I certainly concur with that view. We should not be surprised
with the American sabre rattling. Again the Americans are
reacting, trying to have us back down. Back down we will not do.
Americans claim that U.S. companies will loose by being excluded
from the Canadian market. There have been claims that they would
loose up to $300 million, a figure based on the improbable
scenario of every U.S. magazine launching a Canadian split-run
edition. This type of sabre rattling is what we are hearing.
It seems clear that despite the success of Canadian publishers
in meeting the demands of Canadians for stories about themselves,
the loss of advertising revenues to unfair competition in the
advertising services market would have a very negative impact on
the industry. Canadian content would be lost but not replaced by
split-run advertising editions of U.S. magazines.
Canadians would loose the choice of reading their own stories.
Canadians could not expect American publishers to incur the cost
of adding Canadian stories to their split-run advertising
editions. Nor should they. We need to promote our own stories
written by and for Canadians.
The bill does not limit competition in the Canadian magazine
industry. In fact, Bill C-55 ensures the economic viability of
the Canadian magazine industry and the preservation of thousands
of jobs of Canadian writers, artists, editors, photographers and
art directors. Canadians need to be able to express themselves
through their own medium. The legislation ensures that Canadians
continue to have that freedom.
I urge all members of the House to support the legislation to
send a message that our Canadian cultural institutions are worth
preserving. We will not be swayed from doing the right thing to
ensure that the values, interests and stories that make our
country so unique are heard now and in the future. We must stand
up for our own interests.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard a lot in the debate about Bill C-55
serving to protect Canada's culture. I suggest the more correct
term is to protect Canadian values.
When we think of culture we think in terms of the entertainment
industry and we think in terms of the arts. What we are really
dealing with is something far more prosaic. It is magazines that
may deal with issues that are very much every day in Canadian
life. It is the very fact that they are every day in Canadian
life that makes it so important to preserve them as Canadian
voices rather than American voices.
1615
I will give a simple illustration. When we think of sports
magazines and we consider the Canadian coverage of sports, be it
sports occurring in Canada or sports occurring in the United
States, we are liable to get a very different view from a
Canadian on something like the use of drugs in sports than we
might get in the United States. I am thinking of using certain
performance enhancing drugs in baseball which has been the
subject of a great many articles in both Canada and the United
States. American society has a much more broad minded approach
to this kind of cheating than does Canadian society. Americans
would not consider it cheating at all but in Canadian society we
might.
When we talk about the magazine publishing industry we are not
necessarily talking about music magazines or arts magazines. We
are talking about magazines dealing with home decorating, social
issues, anything imaginable. Canadian values are reflected in
this type of venue.
I will give another example. It is very important in Canadian
society that we believe as Canadians that fundamental human
rights pertain to the individual. In our charter of rights we do
not even mention the issue of property. In the United States
property rights are very much an issue. Americans are very
conscious of the need to protect property. This has created a
huge division in attitude between Americans and Canadians.
In magazine articles, even indirectly, this difference in values
will be expressed. When a Canadian writer deals with issues at
home, issues of safety, the safety of Canadian cities, that
person will look in terms of the protection of human rights, of
individual rights, not in terms of property rights.
I remember a vivid example of a National Geographic
article that dealt with a tornado that struck the community of
Homestead, Florida. It devastated that community. The article
had illustrations of the various damage of the tornado. One
illustration showed an individual property owner standing amid
the wreckage of his property with his furniture and everything
all smashed, including his home. He had a small silver plated
gun to the head of a looter. The caption simply said something
like Florida homeowner protects his property from looters.
That illustration is an example of the gulf in value that exists
between American attitudes toward property, the protection of
property and the use of force to protect property and Canadian
values which would say that under no circumstances would anyone
every have the right to hold a gun to the head of a person merely
trying to steal something or looking at the rubble after a
tornado. That would never happen in Canadian society. What is
really at issue here is not just the protection of Canadian
culture but the protection of Canadian values.
I note the Bloc Quebecois is very much in support of the
principles of Bill C-55, and well it should be. It is well
established that Americans feel very strongly that there should
be only one official language. They cannot understand a society
that actually has a whole bureaucracy, all our engines set up to
accommodate two official languages operating in a society. That
has made us into an exceptionally tolerant people.
That is not what we get when we read American publications. When
we read the language and the stories of a society, underneath are
that society's values. It is the same in television.
Unfortunately we cannot do much about the airwaves but we can do
something about the publishing industry.
Bill C-55 tries to do this precise thing.
1620
How is it doing it? As someone who comes from the publishing
industry, I am impressed that the drafters of this law have
recognized some realities of the publishing industry. One is
that companies have fixed advertising budgets. The more
advertising venues one has for a company that wishes to
advertise, the more that money will be spread around and less
will go to any individual organization. I will give the example
that is occurring right now.
The National Post is trying to enter the newspaper
marketplace and it is up against the Toronto Star and the
Globe and Mail. What we really see here is a conflict over
trying to obtain what is essentially a limited amount of
advertising revenue.
A story in the Sunday Star this past weekend claims that
the National Post is making no progress. All we have to do
is look at the National Post's pages and we will see very
few advertisements.
It is the same kind of thing we are talking about now. If the
government does not act in this area there is no doubt that
Canadian advertisers will be attracted to split-run publications
coming out of the United States because there is no doubt they
have more bucks behind them, they have more resources in
producing the glossy finished product to get those topic
interviews that are so expensive. There is no doubt that money
would be streamed to some of these American split-run
publications at the expense of Canadian publications which may be
doing essentially the same story but that story will always have
an undercurrent of Canadian values as opposed to American values.
At that level this legislation acknowledges that there is a
problem here that must be addressed because if it is not
addressed, there will be less of a voice for Canadian articles,
indeed on the same subject, reflecting Canadian values.
One might say that if the government feels that way why does it
not just give all these Canadian magazines a direct grant. Why
does the government not give a direct grant to Canadian writers
in these magazines? This would encourage Canadian content.
I suggest the problem with that is when government interferes
with culture or a freedom of expression or function in Canadian
society or any society, it becomes the government's values or the
bureaucratic values that begin to operate what is actually
happening with that publication or cultural expression, be it
music or print or whatever.
The only measure of whether something is worth saying is whether
people will pay their own money for it or go to the trouble to
hear what is being said. That is why it is so important to have
this cultural responsibility in the hands of free enterprise. We
do that by doing exactly what this legislation does, encouraging
Canadian advertisers to invest those dollars in Canadian
publications so that we can have Canadian stories about Canadians
and about Canadian values.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I feel
constrained to try to stop this Liberal filibuster. The Liberals
invoked closure on this bill. We are ready to go on to the next
group and see if we can get some debate going on the next group
of amendments.
The Liberals are filibustering us, which is appropriate from a
government that does not like to debate the issues but rather
likes to just ram things through with its pulling of the strings
of its backbenchers who vote the way they are told. There is no
democracy. There is no debate. There is no consultation with
Canadians across the country to see whether they support this.
One of the very interesting movies I saw not many years ago is
called The Mouse That Roared. It is an old movie. I have
discovered that if one sees any movies that are newer than about
the last 20 years they will probably tend to corrupt one's
morals.
1625
It was about a small country that had interminable financial
difficulties. In order to solve this problem, the prime minister
or the president of this small country decided to declare war on
the United States on the thinking that after it had lost the war,
which undoubtedly it would, then the United States would, in its
true fashion, pour millions and millions of dollars into the
country to rebuild it which would restore its economy.
I was just wondering if that is what Canada is now trying to do.
Is it declaring war on the United States fully expecting to lose
so that our economy will be restored? I really do not think so.
This whole bill is based on a couple of totally wrong premises.
One premise is that Canadian magazines cannot survive unless they
are protected. I reject that. We have the same thinking from
the heritage department when it comes to Canadian artists. It
thinks that poor Canadian artists are so mediocre that they
cannot make it unless the government prevents radio stations from
playing other artists. They must play Canadian artists. I
reject that.
If we look at some of the award shows these days we will see a
fair representation from Canadian artists. They seem to be making
it fine. There is no law in the United States which says they
must play a certain amount by Canadian artists. However, those
Canadian artists on their own and because of their merits are
able to do this.
I contend it is the same for magazines. Canadian magazines
appeal to Canadian readers in their particular niche of interests
and they can make it very well, thank you, without government
interference.
There is another premise which I roundly reject in this bill,
that culture will somehow be either destroyed or made less
vibrant if the government does not protect it. That is fuzzy
thinking, Liberal thinking, thinking that says unless the
government regulates, promotes, taxes and sends a whole bunch of
investigators and supervisors into it, it will not happen. This
is a totally wrong premise.
I grew up in a culture which is not one of the ones on the
protected list, which is another problem. If we turn over the
promotion of culture to government then we get a list of culture,
A culture, B culture. We get all these different lists and
anybody who is not on the list unfortunately has to make it on
their own, which they will. Meanwhile their tax dollars are
siphoned off in order to support other people's cultures.
I am quite convinced, from my own experience, that culture is
something which we need to let the people control. It should not
be handed over to a government bureaucracy. All this crying from
the Liberal side about needing to do this in order to preserve
our culture is just a bunch of hogwash. It just does not fly.
It is a false premise, fuzzy thinking and wrong thinking.
I am quite convinced this bill is very ill advised. We are not
fearmongering but strictly being realistic when we say that it
puts at risk a lot of Canadian trade with the Americans because
they have already given notice that they will do this.
I know members over there are saying let us not just fold every
time somebody makes a threat. Of course not. We have our own
sovereignty but let us choose the issues we will fight for. Let
us make sure they are worth fighting for. Let us not pick a
fight on something that is unnecessary, ineffective and that will
only take us into a huge amount of trade disputes with the
Americans.
I am ready to dispute with them anytime but does this government
do this? Does it do it when it comes to our farmers and trade?
No. The government puts up its own barriers. It says it will
not let Canadian farmers send their wheat to the United States.
It puts up its own barriers and prevents farmers from doing that.
Here it is saying it will put up a barrier to protect Canadian
industry. That is just garbage because at every other turn it
does just the opposite.
1630
My contention and my statement in my short intervention
unplanned as it is, is simply to appeal to the government
backbenchers to think, just good old plain put the brain in gear.
They should think for themselves. I know I cannot address them
directly.
They should not simply vote for this because the Minister of
Canadian Heritage has her political life on the line and there is
a big move to try to save her face. I have no interest in having
her lose face, but she could gain face by backing off on this
legislation. I would like to see her come into the House today
and say “I am withdrawing this bill until we do more study on it
and find out whether or not it is really needed, and whether or
not it is effective, and whether or not it is based on right
premises and right thinking”.
It is unconscionable that the Liberals are ramming this bill
through. They have put in closure and are filibustering on the
amendments in Group No. l so we cannot discuss the amendment in
Group No. 2 which is the minister's motion. I cannot understand
this. It is absolutely frustrating.
This is one of the things that brings this parliament into
disrepute across the country. The people of Canada are not being
heard. They are not being consulted. They are not being
informed correctly. They always receive all sorts of different
messages which are meant to give them the message the government
wants them to believe.
This example is way off topic but it shows what I am talking
about. When it comes to health care funding the government wants
us to have $2 billion, $2 billion, $2.5 billion. When it is all
added up it is $11.5 billion. The fact is that the health care
funding is going up this year by $2 billion and next year it will
be zero because it is $2 billion more than it was last year, next
year as well. Yet the Liberals want Canadians to think it is
going up another $2 billion. It is not. That is the type of
message the Liberals give. It is not a fair way of communicating
with Canadian voters, Canadian taxpayers.
That is exactly what is happening with this bill. The government
is giving out its message. I am going to say it, Mr. Speaker,
and you can call me on it if you want to, but it is totally false
information. The government is deceiving the people of Canada
with this misinformation. It is time that the Liberals withdrew
the bill and said to Canadians that they are going to look at it
again because they want to do it correctly.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this
debate and especially to follow the member for Elk Island. I can
honestly say that the member represents for me probably 90% of
the reason I could never ever be associated with the Reform
Party. I am a passionate interventionist.
The member talked about how we are ramming this bill through.
The bill is not being rammed through.
Today the Government of Canada and the people of Canada are
receiving the MAD treatment from the Reform Party. Many years
ago, when I had the great privilege and pleasure of working for
the then Prime Minister Trudeau, we would refer to the MAD
treatment, maximum administrative delay. That is what the people
of Canada are experiencing today. Whenever an opposition party
essentially wants to delete every clause of a bill and thereby
delete the bill, that is the MAD treatment.
Passionate interventionism is what I believe in. There is not a
riding or a sector of this country's economy that would be alive
and well today if we had not had some form of government
intervention.
The member talked about tragedies. One of the real tragedies of
the House of Commons has been the impact that that opposition
party has had on so many other issues where we have watered down
the Government of Canada activism, the Government of Canada
presence in this country.
That is part of the reason we have separatism, but fortunately
that party is on the way out now. We can see that party has been
so distracted lately because the economy is coming back. It is
starting to lose its separatist foundation in that province.
1635
I want to quote one of our national treasures. There was an
article in the Globe and Mail on Saturday, March 6. I want
to quote one of our great Canadian hockey treasures, Frank
Mahovlich. The article is by Graham Fraser. It states:
But Mahovlich has a bleak view of the game he once mastered and
charmed.
“The head office is now in New York,” he said in his radio
interview. “We have lost this game. The game is not what it
used to be. I mean, we've always changed the rules to suit
everybody else. When we played the Russians, back in 1972, we
weren't playing our rules, we were playing the Russian rules, the
Olympic rules. So the game is not Canadian any more. We've lost
it. Whether we can get it back or not, I don't know. We'll have
to wait and see”.
The members of the Reform Party have tried in so many areas to
diminish the Canadian content, to diminish the Canadian presence,
to diminish the Canadian activism. If there was ever an area
where Canada's House of Commons should be standing on guard, it
is in the area of culture.
I consider that Bill C-55 is really not an overly aggressive
attempt to keep this country's magazine industry alive. I cannot
understand for the life of me why the Reform Party is trying to
put a spike in the spirit and the heart of this bill.
The member said to us that we think Canadian magazines cannot
survive on their own. The bottom line is, I believe that. I
believe they cannot survive on their own.
Have the Reform Party members ever competed against the American
muscle with all its money and influence? When was the last time?
Let us ask any Canadians who are listening to this debate. Do
not listen to me. Walk down to the local grocery store, walk
down to the local variety store or go into the local bookstore
and look at those magazine racks. Better than 50% of the
magazines—
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Eighty per cent.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: The Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Canadian Heritage has just corrected me and I
appreciate that. Almost 80% of the magazines on the racks in this
country are American magazines. Is the Reform Party that
satisfied with the Americans having 80%? Does it want us to roll
over and give them 90% or 95%? When will it stop? The Reform
Party is going to want us to erase the 49th parallel next.
I dread the day when we have to have a debate about water with
the Reform Party sitting in the House. My goodness, that will be
the day when we really will be put to the test because that is
something the Americans want a heck of a lot more than more shelf
space on a magazine rack. We should all be united and I can see
the Reform Party running away from the water debate saying to
just roll over and give it to the Americans.
1640
We should respect and work with our neighbours, but at the same
time we have a duty and a responsibility to make sure that our
magazine industry is vibrant and viable. If it means the Minister
of Canadian Heritage has to stand up and say enough, that this is
what we are going to do, then we should be a fist in this House
of Commons, especially when the Americans have access to our
community by selling magazines like no other country in the
world.
The Americans ship them across the 49th parallel. There are
hardly any shipping costs when they move magazines into this
country. Let us think about that.
Members have to understand that many of the craftsmen and
craftswomen who design, write and organize our magazine industry
are the same artists who help other sectors of the cultural
industry, the motion picture industry and the television
industry. Unless those artists are given an opportunity to
maximize and test their potential and have others give them
feedback and critique the quality of their work, this is going to
have an adverse impact on other business components of our
cultural industry. It is a huge, huge industry. We are talking
job numbers here that are very serious to our gross domestic
product.
To the members of the Reform Party, let us not diminish the
Canadian cultural activity. The Reform Party members said when
they came to this House of Commons that when they saw something
good for the nation, they would work with us and make change.
If there was ever a case for government intervention, this is
it. This bill should be supported because the American magazine
industry currently has almost 80% of the magazines on the racks
in this country. I say to the member for Elk Island that is
quite enough for our neighbours and it is time that all of us in
the House stood up for our own.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Justice; the hon.
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, Airbus; the hon. member
for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Devco.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to this bill today. Of course, this will
be our last opportunity.
It was rather interesting to listen to the member for
Broadview—Greenwood. He thought that if there ever was a time
when the government needed to intervene in this nation's cultural
industry, this was the bill to do it, unless of course it
happened to be professional hockey teams, in which case that
would be a good idea too, unless it happened to be an artist back
home, or who knows what. There never seems to be an end to the
list of people.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The hon. member just said that this would be the last
chance the House would have to address this issue. I would like
to point out to the member that we are at report stage and there
is still third reading.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that is a point of
order. I think really it is a point of debate.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the
Liberals seem to be so sensitive about the issue of time
allocation.
Let us go back to 1956. Mr. Speaker, you were but a young lad I
am sure.
The Liberal government of the day decided that a crucial
parliamentary debate, a debate such as we had today, on the
trans-Canada pipeline had tarried too long. It implemented a
powerful but rarely used standing order of the day and invoked
closure, shut down debate to force a controversial bill through
the House of Commons. The hue and cry from the opposition
parties, the media and ordinary Canadians was staggering. In the
election that followed the travesty of democracy became a scourge
of the Liberal Party and the government of the day slipped into
the government of the past.
1645
How times have changed. This week another Liberal government
has invoked a form of closure. This is number 49, the 49th time
the government has invoked closure. I think it will hit the
golden anniversary of 50 some time this week. That will be 50
times that it has invoked time allocation and closure since it
has come to power. That is the fastest 50 uses of closure in
Canadian history.
Pipeline debates are passé nowadays, but debate on this bill, a
very important bill to Canadians as the Liberal member prior to
me mentioned, will be shut down. Debate will be silenced and the
government will push it through and push it through again at the
next stage because it has decided it is the easiest way to manage
time in the House.
It is a vitally important bill. It involves not only a social
principle. It could involve hundreds of millions, perhaps
billions of dollars, worth of trade which could be at risk
because of the bill. It is hugely important to Canadians and
they want to see it properly debated in the House.
As I mentioned it is all over but the crying. The government
has decided that there is very little political price to pay, so
for the 49th time it will invoke closure or restriction on
debate. We will be forced to vote on it tonight and it will pass
into the annals of history as another time when democracy took
short shrift.
The closure problem did not happen overnight. I do not want to
point fingers at just one political party. The party that was in
government before the Liberals also had this problem, although it
took it eight years to reach 50 time allocation motions. This
government has done it in five.
The political masters across the way have acted so consistently
undemocratic over the past several years that in fact I would
argue we have become callous to democracy's decline. The use of
iron fisted party discipline means that MPs often vote to
represent the party before constituents. The lack of electoral
reform ensures that a majority government, in this case with only
38% of the national vote, has absolute dictatorial powers in the
House of Commons, in the appointment process and in a hundred or
a thousand different ways.
Unfortunately successive majority governments over the last
number of years also meant that power sharing was no longer
necessary, or they felt it was not. As a result Canadians
increasingly tune out the democratic process between elections.
The Liberals interpret this inattentiveness as a licence to
ignore everything, from unanimous all party committee reports
that are tabled in this place, to the Auditor General of Canada
who says he will not sign off on the books of the government
because they routinely transgress standard accounting practices.
Yet government members say “Who cares? We have 100% of the
power. We do not have to share it. We do not have to do what is
considered routine or ordinary or normal or accepted in any other
practice. We will just do as we please”. This is the 49th time
they have taken that tact.
I recently attended a briefing on the current democratic reforms
occurring in the United Kingdom. Although I do not claim that is
the perfect democracy either, I listened to an interesting
discussion at the high commission. Members of the mother
parliament, as we like to call it, are forging ahead with what
they would consider to be radical changes. They are talking
about devolution of powers to local governments in Ireland, Wales
and Scotland. As they do that strange things happen. Not only
are they restoring peace and tranquillity to those regions, but
they are also instilling a sense of pride in those regions.
Power sharing under this new proposal through either a coalition
government or proportional representation will be routine.
1650
For example, the chairs of the committees will be allocated not
on the percentage of who holds absolute power but on the
percentage of the seats that are held in the House. Imagine
chairs being allocated in a fair manner.
The use of referendum to determine broad public policy and even
constitutional matters will be commonplace. Those on the Liberal
side say that is a radical proposal, actually giving power to
constituents, but in Britain they say that would be okay. In
fact they have already done it in Wales, Scotland and Ireland,
and with miraculous results.
Guess what. When people have a say in the legislation and in
the constitution they buy into it. They say “I have been part
of the process. I will live with the results”.
Britain is one of the last holdouts for this unelected upper
chamber in the world. The only other one in the free world is
the Canadian Senate. It is the only other one that is unelected.
Over there they are even toying with the idea of electing
members. What a radical thought. What has got into those Brits?
Have they gone completely over the edge? Imagine all this
democracy at one time. How will they stand it? At the very
least, the hereditary peers will be gone. It is unstoppable. The
move toward democratization in that upper house is now inevitable
and just a matter of time.
We are approaching the golden anniversary on time allocation,
this black mark on the Liberal record. In the last parliament
many high profile Liberals in government, esteemed people with
perhaps as much procedural expertise as yourself, Mr. Speaker,
were quoted as talking about the dictatorial Tory attitude on
closure, about the fact that it was an affront to democracy. Now
they seem to think it is routine business.
Within a few days we will see No. 50. Within a few more days we
will see No. 51. I look forward to the day when they table the
closure motion with the bill in the House of Commons just because
it will be much simpler.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I agree with my colleague with respect to your knowledge of
procedure and so on, but it seems to me that we are discussing
Bill C-55 which has something to do with magazines. Are we
discussing procedure or the Senate? I would be grateful if you
would rule whether these arguments are relevant.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, further to that point, we
on the other side of the House have a right to address this bill
or any other bill in the way we see fit. The fact is in
conjunction with this bill the government invoked time allocation
and it is very relevant to the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member who was speaking
certainly took a flight of fancy when he described a lot of the
changes that were happening in the U.K., which is very
interesting, but I must say I was having a little trouble
detecting its relevance to the bill before the House.
On the other hand, discussion about time allocation is entirely
appropriate given we are operating under time allocation on the
bill. I noted before the parliamentary secretary intervened that
the official opposition whip had come back to earth and was back
on the bill or something relevant to the bill and so I was
reluctant to intervene in any way. I know that he will want to
conclude his remarks.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the flights of fancy are
obviously not restricted to either side of the House, and the
Chair has his say as well. Since we are talking about Britain—I
was talking about it as were you—when the awards are handed out,
whether Juno awards, Academy awards or other internationally
recognized awards, it is always nice to see the long list of
Canadians who have made it to the top on their ability, not on
the fact that they have been protected. That is how to do it.
One becomes good at art or good at magazines or at whatever one
happens to be doing and the world will beat a pathway to one's
door.
I would hope that on this 49th occasion of the use of time
allocation, which is unfortunately restricting the debate on the
magazine bill, we would take stock and take note of what is
happening here. As we consider changes for the future, I would
hope our legacy to the world would be one that demonstrates
dissenting voices and opinions are not only listened to but are
listened to at length in the House of Commons and in Canada.
We do not mind dissenting opinions. We think it is okay in a
democracy to develop parliamentary procedures that empower
people, not empower governments.
1655
We realize that efficiency and control of the debate should not
come at the expense of our freedom of expression and our time in
the House. As we debate the bill, I hope we realize we are
discussing both the future of our cultural industries, which are
important, and the future of the democratic process and the
changes the government seems reluctant to entertain.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member across the way said we may speak according to
the way we see fit. I want to address the bill according to the
way I see fit this afternoon because many of my constituents who
are watching and listening to the debate have asked us questions
and I would like to answer a few of them on Bill C-55, the
magazine bill or the advertising by foreign periodical publishers
bill, and freedom of expression.
I received a couple of calls today asking how Bill C-55 would
ensure that Canadian magazine publishers have clear access to
Canadian advertising services and the revenues accruing from
them. The answer to my constituents was that without those
revenues we would not have a viable Canadian magazine industry.
Without those revenues we would be unable to provide Canadian
readers with the broad range of Canadian publications we
currently have.
Many of us as members of parliament were present at a display in
one of the rooms on the parliamentary precincts a while ago where
several hundred Canadian magazines were on the shelves. Men and
women who were cultural artists, photographers, graphic artists,
writers, publishers, et cetera, were also there. They were very
proud of the work they were doing. They see this as a viable way
of making a living for themselves and see any move in the
direction of where there is no support for Bill C-55 as being a
threat to them, to their future and to Canadian cultural
activities.
After reading several articles in the press this weekend, we
know that the Reform Party will not be supporting the bill. It
is not unreasonable to hear what we heard today in debate. It is
part of the plan of action wherein there is little support.
I want to speak specifically to my constituents who have some
concerns and have addressed them to me. In discussions with
several of them there was a sense that Bill C-55 would stop U.S.
magazines from entering Canada. I think other members addressed
this earlier, but I want to make sure they understand that U.S.
magazines will continue to be welcomed in Canada and that U.S.
magazines account for 80% of newsstand sales in Canada.
Bill C-55 is about regulating access to advertising services.
Foreign publishers seek access to revenues from selling Canadian
advertising services without producing original editorial content
for the Canadian market. That revenue is then not available to
Canadian publishers that actually produce original content for
the Canadian market.
The important point is the fact that foreign publishers cannot
come in and use our Canadian advertising services and walk away
with our Canadian dollars, denying Canadians the opportunity to
benefit from the Canadian market.
1700
We hear a good deal about the trade war that will result between
Canada and the United States. My constituents are concerned
about this when they hear from the Reform members what could
possibly happen to us as a result, what industries could be put
at risk, the fact that at this point in time what we will be
really doing is letting the American anger and the American
feelings over this issue somehow come down on us like a ton of
bricks.
I want to say to my constituents that this is not a trade war.
Canada and the U.S. have the world's most successful trading
relationship with about 95% of all goods going back and forth
across the border. We have ways we could settle disputes and
that dispute settlements are there to be used. This is precisely
why Bill C-55 has provisions that if the U.S. dislikes the
provision it can then turn to international dispute settlement.
One other item that is also important is something I jotted down
from a conversation with a constituent who spoke about the fact
that the bill does not place restrictions on the content of
magazines or on individual advertisements or limits Canadians'
access to foreign magazines. This is someone who is supportive
of Bill C-55 and who wanted to make sure that I made that point
today. This bill does not place restrictions on the contents of
magazines.
Another constituent addressed the issue of freedom of expression
to enjoy a diversity of Canadian ideas. I think this is what
Bill C-55 is ensuring, that Canadians continue to have the
freedom to express, the freedom to enjoy a diversity of ideas as
seen in Canadian magazines.
I encourage my colleagues in the Reform Party to take a second
look at their position at this point to recognize the importance
of Canadian advertisers to invest in Canadian publications and to
again take another look at the fact that this is not draconian
and unprecedented legislation. We have at least 100 pieces of
legislation that contain similar legal provisions as we see in
Bill C-55.
This is not the last time to debate this bill. Other
opportunities will be presented. This is not the last
opportunity, as one member across the way states. Other
opportunities will be provided.
We need to stand up for our cultural artists. As we head into
the new millennium it is important that Canadian cultural
activities be affirmed and that we go into the millennium
strengthened.
Bill C-55 supports longstanding Canadian cultural policies. It
is consistent with our international trade obligations and it is
the Canadian thing to do.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I wish I could say it is a pleasure for me to rise this
afternoon to address the Group No. 1 amendments to Bill C-55.
Unfortunately I am unable to do that due to the fact that the
government, as has been referred to already during this
afternoon's debate, elected to impose time allocation yet again
for the 49th time.
Due to this time allocation at report stage, there is no
assurance that this arrogant Liberal government will not impose
time allocation as well at third reading despite what the hon.
member preceding me had to say about this not being the last
opportunity for hon. members on both sides of the House to
address this legislation.
1705
Due to time allocation and the reality that the clock is now at
5.05 p.m., my understanding is debate will be collapsed by this
government through the use of time allocation at approximately
6.15 p.m. and we have not even got to discuss the Group No. 2
amendments. I wonder if I could have the unanimous consent of
the House to move immediately to Group No. 2 amendments.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, I think what we have just
seen is indicative of the extremely arrogant dictatorial style of
this government in the fact that it refused a very reasonable
request that we move on to Group No. 2 amendments.
Ironically, Group No. 2 consists of only one motion put forward
by the hon. minister of heritage, the very minister who is
putting forward this bill. We will quite likely never get to
Group No. 2. The reality is that through the use of time
allocation by this government we on this side of the House will
never have the opportunity to actually debate the minister's
amendment to her own bill. I think that would certainly indicate
to the viewing public exactly where this government stands on the
use of time allocation and how it pertains to democracy in our
country.
As we have said already during the debate, this is the 49th time
this government has elected to use time allocation. There were
45 times that avenue was used to shut down debate and 4 times for
closure; 36 times in the 35th parliament and 13 already in less
than two years in this, the 36th parliament. Shame on this
government. The reality that it has elected to continuously and
systemically shut down debate and limit democracy is quite
appalling.
My hon. colleague from Fraser Valley was showing how some of the
Liberal members, when they were on this side of the House during
the reign of terror by the Tory government between 1984 and 1993,
were always quick to jump to their feet whenever that government
utilized time allocation or closure to ram legislation through
this place. Yet these same members, many of whom are still here
but who sit on the government side, are strangely mute when it
comes to the use of time allocation.
There are examples of the flagrant abuse of power by this
government other than the use of time allocation. Whipped votes
come to mind when people think about how this government is
abusing its power. We remember a year or two ago when we had the
now famous flag debate where the Reform Party put forward a
motion that a member should be able to have a small flag on his
or her desk to denote their patriotism. It was voted down. There
was a whipped vote and that motion was voted down.
We saw it with the hepatitis C issue where again the Reform
Party was trying to get compensation for all hepatitis C victims.
Again the government whip got all the backbenchers to fall into
line and vote it down. Just last month the Reform Party put
forward a supply motion concerning the child porn situation in
British Columbia and how we wanted to use the notwithstanding
clause to prevent those who would view child porn from possessing
that type of despicable material.
Again, a whipped vote and all of the Liberals fell into line and
voted against that very important motion.
1710
Tomorrow we will see the same type of thing take place when we
have the Reform motion concerning the unfair tax policy and how
it discriminates against single income families that elect to
have one parent stay at home, work in the home and raise and
guide their children.
What I am trying to point out is that unfortunately for Canada
and the Canadian general public there are many examples of where
this arrogant Liberal government is abusing the power it has been
granted by the electorate. It is operating in a very dictatorial
manner.
In that light I would like to quote from a publication called
“Governing with Integrity”:
The most important asset of government is the confidence it
enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable. There is
evidence today of considerable dissatisfaction with government
and a steady erosion of confidence in the people and institutions
of the public sector.
This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes. Some have
to do with the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others
with an arrogant style of political leadership.
A Liberal government will take a series of initiatives to
restore confidence in the institutions of government.
One of the steps cited on page 92 is that more free votes will
be allowed in the House of Commons. What I am quoting from is
what has become known as the infamous Liberal red book on the
policies they ran under in the 1993 election. Unfortunately for
Canada they were elected to their first majority government in
October 1993.
In the short time I have remaining one thing I would like to
briefly refer to is of real concern to me. One of the most
disturbing trends we have seen lately is the drop in the
electoral turnout at the ballot boxes.
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member mentioned that he is short of time. I have
been watching the clock and it seems to me that for seven or
eight minutes he has been dealing with matters such as whipped
votes. He is now bringing up the turnout of voters at the ballot
boxes. Is he debating Bill C-55 at all?
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, while we once again have
a point of order from the Liberals who do not like to hear this,
the fact is Bill C-55 has been subject to time allocation by this
government. We feel every right to undertake the privilege in
the House to talk to the abuse of Bill C-55 which is indeed time
allocation in as much as the content of the bill.
Mr. Paul Steckle: Madam Speaker, I think it would be fair
for the hon. member to retract his statement made a few moments
ago that all members voted with our party on the matter of porn.
We did not. There were four members who did not.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): These observations
are really not points of order.
Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, in reply to the last point
of order, I retract my statement about the child porn vote. I
recognize the oversight that there were four Liberal members who
had some courage and actually stood up and voted with the
opposition on that motion. My apologies to those four members.
Unfortunately we do not see enough of them break ranks and follow
the lead of those four so that we can get those types of motions
passed in this place.
In the minute or so I have remaining I point out to the hon.
deputy whip of the government that when I started my intervention
this afternoon, I did ask for unanimous consent to move forward
and debate his minister's amendment.
It was he himself who refused to allow me to voice my concerns
about this amendment. It should not come as a surprise that
therefore I elect to voice my concerns about the dictatorial
manner in which this government operates.
1715
There is ample evidence to suggest that voter turnout at the
ballot box has declined in the last two elections from about 75%,
which is the long term average, to about two-thirds. That is a
dramatic drop in the number of Canadians who actually turn up to
cast a ballot.
I would suggest that one of the very real reasons cynicism is
running so deep in Canada today is because of autocratically run
governments. The average voter sees no point in turning out to
cast a ballot.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to enter the debate this afternoon on Bill
C-55.
The previous speaker about a year ago attempted to make a whole
charade out of our national flag. It was something that really
upset me at the time. As some may know, I have been very
supportive of our flag. I tried to create a flag day. It is
interesting that when that issue was before committee Reform did
not support any of the initiatives. If we went back a year ago
the flag that would be of choice for Reform members to have on
their desks would be the stars and stripes.
Bill C-55 is about ensuring that we have Canadian culture in
Canada. There are 30 million Canadians and there are 300 million
Americans. Many of our people live within 100 miles of the U.S.
border and are bombarded by American communication.
That does not mean it is a bad thing, but it makes it very
difficult to build on what Canadians have built, an extremely
dynamic, independent and sovereign country on the northern half
of the North American continent.
Trade negotiation is just that. I was recently in the United
States and there was no press coverage whatsoever about Canada's
debate over maintaining its cultural industries through the use
of Bill C-55. We are talking about a $400 million expenditure on
advertising, which means nothing, quite frankly, to the
Americans. The debate in the United States was about steel and
steel importation.
Those members jump up, one after the other, saying “Look at all
the awful things the Americans are going to do to us if we pass
this $400 million piece of legislation. They are going to
embargo our steel. They are going to embargo our softwood
lumber. They are going to embargo our wheat”. Quite frankly,
the Americans want to do that anyway. It has nothing to do with
Bill C-55.
When I was in the United States the debate was all about the
steel industry, Bethlehem Steel. For members who are doing the
bidding of the Americans, I would tell them that it is a lot
cheaper to pay lobbyists to go to Washington to lobby the
government, Mr. Clinton and the special trade representative, Ms.
Barshefsky, than to build an efficient steel industry in the
United States. The U.S. has old, inefficient operations.
If these members who love the Americans so much were concerned
about their economy, they would be arguing that the Americans
should be more competitive, allow Canadian steel more access to
the American market and allow Canadian softwood lumber more
access to the Canadian market because it would make them more
efficient.
We do not want them to hide behind uneconomic trade barriers.
Uneconomic trade barriers beat up on everybody. They use power
to control their economy and to beat up their competitors.
1720
This whole debate is about how they are going to beat up on us.
It has nothing to do with cultural policy. It would not take the
Americans five seconds if they thought that Disneyland or the
Disney corporation was under the threat of competition within the
United States to ensure that those industries in the United
States were taken care of.
They have 97% of our film industry. The debate is about getting
the other 3%. This is a ridiculous, idiotic debate and I am
surprised at members opposite who seem to want to support that
kind of initiative.
They talk about democracy. The reality is that Ms. Barshefsky
does not represent the American people. She represents
particular special interest groups, called American industry,
which want protection. It is not just the Canadian steel
producers. In fact they are the last people on their list. They
want to attack Korean steel, Japanese steel and steel coming from
southeast Asia.
Members should look at Bethlehem Steel or the steel operations
in Pennsylvania. The reality is that the Americans have not paid
the price to keep them efficient. They have not been efficient
producers and they are being out competed. The Americans are
supposed to be the great competitors. They believe in free
competition. They believe in free markets, except when there are
others coming into their market. Then they believe in securing
their market and keeping the other guy out.
These people today are supporting the American agenda to
basically build walls around the United States. They do not want
us to compete in their market, but they sure want to compete in
ours.
Does everybody remember the softwood lumber issue? The
Americans successfully created quotas against the importation of
Canadian softwood lumber. The Americans said that we could take
them to the WTO and we would probably win. It is the same thing
with this issue. If it were to go to the WTO, we would probably
win.
But guess what? They could place embargoes on our exports to
the United States. That could go on for three years in a court
determined process and even if the Americans had to pay penalties
by keeping artificially high prices on softwood lumber within the
United States it would be a money maker.
What happened with softwood lumber? Canada ended up with
quotas.
Those people over there are supporting that kind of agenda. Let
the bully win. Do not do anything to the bully. Do his bidding
for him. That is the Reform Party's agenda. Those people
claimed to wrap themselves in the flag a year ago and today they
refuse to protect Canadian culture.
I do not like to use the word protection. I do not believe in
protectionism myself. What I do believe is that Canada has an
emerging cultural industry. Canadians want to tell their stories
to each other. They want to have media, a communications network
and magazines that tell Canadian stories.
Over the years Canadians have been happy and willing to step
forward and pay that price because that is what we are. That is
part of our Canadian heritage.
Day in and day out it is incredible what we hear from members of
the Reform Party. The other day we were talking about tax policy
and they said “I guess you have to pay Uncle Sam some day”.
That is their thought process. It is in their brain power. They
do not even know what country they are living in. They have
accepted the American agenda to such a great extent that they are
standing up for it. They are not standing up for their
constituents, they are standing up for a secular interest group,
the American industry. They are the tool of American industry.
1725
I do not know who exactly owns those oil fields in Alberta. I
do not know what signs are over the gas stations out there. But
they have been doing this for so long that they are committed to
coming to the House to support the United States of America
against their own people.
It makes me feel very good to support this legislation. The
sooner we can put this into effect, the better it will be for my
constituents and all Canadians.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I want to speak directly to Bill C-55. A lot of what I
have to say directly involves time allocation.
To me there are too many issues. With this magazine bill the
heritage minister is setting Canada up for U.S. trade
retaliation. We all know that and the government knows that.
With the risk of trade retaliation there is the risk of losing
jobs, in particular jobs in the minister's own riding.
One thing that perplexes me is why a government would continue
with this knowing full well that there are trade sanctions on the
way.
The other thing is that when she bans Canadian advertisers from
selling their goods and services in foreign magazines the
minister is telling Canadian advertisers that when it comes to
freedom of speech they are second class citizens.
That still does not seem to affect this government when it comes
to doing what it damn well pleases in the House of Commons,
regardless of how it affects people in other jurisdictions. It
is really sad.
I want to comment on an issue which my colleague from Prince
George—Peace River brought up recently. He stood in the House a
few minutes ago looking for unanimous consent from members
opposite to move to the Group 2 amendments. Perhaps the folks
out there do not understand what that is, but really what he
wanted to do was get off the debate on the amendments that were
proposed by the Reform Party and on to the debate of an amendment
proposed by the minister.
Members opposite declined. Basically what that says is that the
minister has an amendment to the bill which will not even be
debated. For the life of me, I do not understand why the
government would take that approach. What is it about debate in
the House of Commons that we are not allowed to have?
For the people who do not understand what time allocation is, it
is a way of preventing further debate on an issue because the
government wants to put through a bill.
As people will have heard, there have been a lot of bills which
have had time allocation placed on them. We must consider those
bills and how much time we actually had to speak on them. I want
to talk about a couple of them.
Bill C-36 came before the House at report stage. The official
opposition had 50 minutes of debate before the government brought
in time allocation. What kind of debate is that? In the House
of Commons the government says “You have had your 50 minutes.
Let us go ahead and do something else. We are going to push this
through at this stage”.
I can tell hon. members what is going to happen. The government
is at the end of the line on this issue. We have now had 49
bills on which time has been limited and we are about to get
number 50. As House leader I am sick and tired of sitting in
House leaders' meetings listening to the fact that closure after
closure, time allocation after time allocation, is going to occur
and we will just damn well have to accept it.
That is not the way it is going to be. It may be time, and I
think it is time, for the official opposition to say “Rather
than your 50 minutes or your two hours of debate from us, maybe
we will just close you down and see how you like that. Maybe we
will just stall all of your bills. Maybe it is time for
committees that want to travel to get in here and debate the bill
because we will not allow that travel”.
I think it is time to talk turkey. Enough is enough. When we
want to talk at length about important bills such as Bill C-55,
we do not expect to come into the House and have the government
say “We do not want you to debate this any more. You have
already had on this bill three hours and 35 minutes and that is
enough”.
That is unacceptable. We will tell this government that it is
not enough.
1730
It is time to get ready for some serious turkey talk in the
House. There are other bills. Bill C-2 was on the Canada
pension plan and we wanted to debate this at length. It turns
out that at the time of second reading on Bill C-2 the official
opposition had 1 hour and 41 minutes debate on the Canada pension
plan before this government decided we had had enough to say
about it.
I was looking in the library recently at the debates which took
place in the House of Commons in the 1960s under Diefenbaker.
They debated it at length. There was no such thing as bringing
in closure or time allocation. This was an important issue for
all of Canada, so let us debate it and determine where things are
going. What happens? We talk about it for 1 hour and 41 minutes
and the government says that is enough. That is a disgrace. I
wonder if they can understand on the other side how we feel about
that. That was second reading.
Then we go to Bill C-2 on report stage and third reading. The
government must have given a lot more time on that. It turns out
the official opposition had 1 hour and 20 minutes before the
government called time allocation.
I think the hon. member will stand up and talk about relevance
in a minute on a point of order. About $1 billion in trade is
done by Canada and the United States every day. That is relevant
to Bill C-55.
What is more relevant to Bill C-55 is this outrageous situation
where we have the official opposition reduced to about an hour
and a half of debate on bills that we think are important. We
just do not understand how this government can bring in useless
bills, and I mean lots of useless bills, yet when we get to
something important it calls time allocation on it.
The only way the government is getting away with this is because
it has a majority government and because people outside the House
of Commons do not realize what time allocation and closure really
are. It is really a sad day when a government pulls this.
This government has called time allocation and closure on bills
so often that we will hit 50 times since the Liberals have formed
the government in 1993. That is two years ahead of the Tories.
Imagine. They have a worse record than Brian Mulroney on this by
two years. I guess absolute power corrupts absolutely.
When we get a majority government like this it feels that it can
do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. It is a sad commentary
on what we call a democracy. We who came here from the west
thought we would go down to Ottawa and speak on behalf of our
constituents and talk about the issues that are near and dear to
them. We did not realize that when we came here we would be short
shifted on these issues.
For those who are listening to these comments, 1 hour and 20
minutes debate is only about three or four people who get to talk
about these things. On Bill C-65 which has to do with
equalization and about $10 billion, which is coming up and we
understand that time allocation again is coming in on that, we
have just had 3 hours and 35 minutes debate. That is $10 billion,
3 hours and 35 minutes debate, and that is probably about seven
or eight people. We all want to talk about that here, not just
some of us.
1735
I hereby give this government notice that I am about up to here
with this time allocation business. It can look forward to one
heck of a fight in the House of Commons if I see it any more. I
understand it is coming in once more this week and if it does,
this government may be prepared for a long haul between now and
June.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today
to talk about Bill C-55, the foreign publishers advertising
services act. It will regulate advertising services supplied by
foreign magazine publishers to Canadian advertisers where such
services are directed at the Canadian market.
The new law will ensure that Canadian magazine publishers
continue to have access to Canadian advertising revenues which
are necessary for the survival of our periodical publishing
industry.
Advertising revenues from the supply of advertising services are
the main source of revenue for magazine publishers. They finance
the production of editorial content, the purchase of photographs
and much more. Without such revenues there would be no original
Canadian content. Therefore access to revenues from the supply
of advertising services is critical to the continued production
of Canadian stories and of information of interest to Canadians.
Since Confederation Canada has preserved, promoted and enhanced
cultural identity through mass media. Canada's longstanding
cultural policies have supported the creation and communication
of Canadian ideas, stories and information through the
establishment of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, our
National Film Board and a host of other organizations that give
voice to Canadian stories and Canadian culture.
As well, Canada's cultural policies have played a key role in
cultivating a vibrant, domestic magazine publishing industry. In
1996 Canadian publishers produced 1,500 magazines and sold 539
million copies and generated revenues of more than $1 billion. Of
the magazines in circulation in Canada, the percentage of
Canadian magazine titles has grown from 20% in 1956 to 65% in
1997.
In a land as vast as ours and given our rich cultural diversity,
Canadian magazines are a powerful vehicle for expression in the
sharing of stories, information and perspectives. Canadian
magazines help define who we are and enable us to read about
ourselves in our own voices as well as share Canada with those
who live outside our borders.
In a world that technology continues to shrink it is critical
that the federal government continue to support our domestic
magazine publishing industry so that the creation and sharing of
Canadian stories and Canadian perspectives will thrive.
With more than 250 million English speaking Americans to our
south there is no shortage of American stories coming into
Canada. From U.S. magazines we would not hear about Canada Day
or St. Jean Baptiste Day or celebrating Thanksgiving in October.
Nor would we hear about the details of Canadian bank mergers or
the challenges of gardening in our northern climate. What we
would hear is the perspectives and interests of other nations and
other people.
This measure is not about excluding foreign magazines from our
domestic market to enjoy hearing what others have to say, and we
will continue to do that. In fact, Canada imports more American
magazines than the rest of the world combined. Canadians also
want to be able to read about themselves, their communities and
their country. This is clearly demonstrated in the fact that 18
of the top 20 magazines in circulation within our borders are
Canadian.
We must make sure that Canadian publishers have access to
advertising revenues. Because of the relatively small size of
our market, one-tenth the size of the U.S., a strong domestic
advertising revenue base is required to support the creation of
distinctly Canadian magazines. This way we can ensure that
Canadian magazines help project our stories to our own citizens
as well as to others around the world.
1740
This new bill is really about choice, choice for Canadians to
benefit from Canadian voices, perspectives and shared
experiences.
As I mentioned, and this is very important for anyone watching
this debate, we are not excluding others from our domestic
market. Rather, Bill C-55 will result in a secure advertising
base for Canadian magazine publishers. This in turn will ensure
that this vibrant cultural industry continues to provide
distinctive expressions, distinctive vehicles for expressions
which are distinctly Canadian.
Therefore I urge all members to seek speedy passage of this
bill. I also urge opposition members and all those speaking on
this debate to give Canadians watching this debate and the
Americans and others watching this debate the facts. The fact is
it is important for Canadians to have the opportunity to read and
hear about Canadian expressions and Canadian stories.
I have had a number of calls from residents in the constituency
of Thornhill. Many of them have expressed to me their concerns.
When my children were small I searched for Canadian publications
and magazines. At that time there were not nearly as many as
there are today. They are here today because there is a demand
for them within Canada. The fact that we have a relatively small
market means we need to do what we can to ensure that they will
be here not only for today but for future generations. It is
therefore my pleasure to participate in this very important
debate.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the Liberals would have us think they are great
champions of expediency and getting a wonderful bill through the
House. This is why they have arranged matters with this bill in
order to limit debate.
It is very instructive for people who have been watching today
to notice what happened. The Liberals, terribly concerned about
a threatened Reform filibuster, cut off debate. The Liberals
then are filibustering. The dread filibuster has arrived. Who is
driving the get away car? It is the Liberals. Here we have the
Liberals throwing up speakers. I had not intended to speak to
this part of the debate but I knew that they would use up all the
airtime unless the opposition scrambled to speak.
In addition, far from there being a filibuster, we are not even
allowed to speak to the minister's own amendment to this bill.
In other words, the minister brings in what she tells us is a
wonderful amendment to this bill but we do not get to talk about
it, debate it, examine it or get any time to talk about the pros
and cons of it. Why? The Liberals are refusing to even allow us
to talk about the minister's amendment to the bill. That is the
Liberal definition of democracy.
I hope Canadians watching this debate are getting as outraged
and as fed up as I and many of us on this side of the House are
about what is happening.
In addition to false accusations against Reform about a
threatened filibuster, which came after we spoke to this bill for
less than an hour, there is a stampede to stop a filibuster. I
guess one hour is a filibuster according to the Liberals because
they do not like to see any opposition to their measures. We then
have other ridiculous assertions by the Liberals who are being
thrown up to speak on this, none of which hold the slightest bit
of water.
We had one member, for example, saying that Reform had
diminished hockey. Is it not interesting that a government that
is giving us a 65 cent dollar and 33% more taxes is accusing
other people of hurting businesses that have to compete against
the U.S.?
1745
There have been some very interesting misrepresentations by the
Liberals about Bill C-55. One is that there is a crying need to
protect Canadian magazines because 80% of the magazines purchased
at the newsstand are American. The Liberals neglect to tell us
that less than 5% of the magazines read by Canadians are
purchased at the newsstand and 80% of those are U.S. We are
talking 80% of less than 5%. Somehow it drives the Liberals into
a frenzy of culture protection because many of the less than 5%
of magazines purchased are U.S. magazines.
God forbid that Canadians should be allowed the freedom to
purchase the magazines that they would like to purchase from
newsstands. But of course Canadians really need to be protected
against their own freedom of choice. Canadians have to be
limited in the reading material they get. They can only read
magazines produced in Canada because if Canadians dare to
purchase from the newsstands a majority of magazines that are
produced somewhere else, then the Liberals have to shut it down
with some legislated measures.
Let us look at what has happened with this split-run business.
In 1997 the Liberal government lost a challenge laid with the
World Trade Organization against its unfair and inappropriate
measures to try to coerce Canadians into reading only certain
types of material. The World Trade Organization said that this
contravened the kind of trade measures that had been agreed on in
the international trade scene.
What did the Liberals do next? They brought in Bill C-55 in
order to do an end run around the World Trade Organization. Of
course the World Trade Organization understandably is a little
unimpressed by this move by the Liberals but the Liberals have
done it anyway. We heard today that the Liberals have brought in
a measure that says that we cannot stop magazines that have been
operating in Canada on split runs so this only applies to new
magazines that come onstream.
If all of a sudden we have to protect Canadians against new
incursions into their magazine market by the U.S., but we have to
allow the magazines that were operating in 1997 when we lost this
appeal to the World Trade Organization, then what are we really
protecting Canadian culture from? None of the elements that were
present in 1997 will be affected by this bill, only new ones.
Suddenly there is a switch. The things we were going to have to
be protected against in 1997 are now allowable, they are okay
now. Our Canadian culture is not threatened by them any more,
even though we tried to restrict them. Now we have to restrict
something that may be new or different. We are not sure what it
is yet but by God, we are not going to allow it. No siree, we
are going to stand up for Canadian culture.
One of the members opposite even had the nerve to suggest that
artists like Céline Dion and Shania Twain owed their success to
the protective hand of government. What errant nonsense. If I
were one of the artists mentioned in the member's speech, I would
be absolutely furious at the suggestion that in some way, shape
or form the comforting and kind hand of government had made me a
success.
I would like to suggest a rather new and startling proposal to
this government, which is that Canadian artists, Canadian culture
and Canadian magazines can compete on their own. They may just
be good enough, strong enough, timely enough, well written
enough, well researched enough and appeal to the information
needs of Canadians enough that they do not need this Liberal
government and its silly bills to protect them.
1750
It is time that we were realistic about some of these things. To
hear the debate from the other side and to hear the intransigence
on the other side about debating their own amendments is a poor
reflection on the democracy of this place. As our House leader
just mentioned, the Liberals' abuse of the system, the Liberals'
assertions that do not hold water simply cannot be tolerated any
longer.
Today in question period we heard the minister make it clear to
everyone that she does not know the provisions in her bill and
how the bill will affect Chinese publications and their split
runs. There is clearly something wrong when the minister
misinforms the House about the effect of her own bill.
Surely there is a great need to take some time to debate this
properly and thoroughly but no, we have to close down debate.
My debate is going to be closed down pretty soon, and I am sure
everyone feels as badly about that as I do.
The Liberals have to arrange things so we cannot discuss the
minister's amendments. It is time we put a stop to this. I
appeal to members of the House to give this matter some sober
thought. Make sure that bills are properly debated and presented
and that every aspect is examined by the House as it is our duty
and our responsibility to do.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to point out to the House on the limiting of the
debate that nearly two dozen Reform members of parliament have
already spoken on this bill. Having heard many of them just at
this one stage of the bill, I know that the same things have been
said nearly two dozen times over. Nothing new is being added to
the debate.
I should point out to Canadians who are listening that there was
also second reading at which many Reform members spoke. There
will also be third reading at which many more Reform members will
speak. It is hardly the fault of the government if in all those
opportunities, nearly 50 in total, the Reform Party has not been
able to get across its message to Canadians.
The other thing I need to correct in the member's speech is the
fact that we are trying to limit the choice of Canadians. There
is no foreign magazine that will not be allowed in Canada. If
having 80% of the magazines on our newsstands that are American
magazines is not enough choice for Canadians, I would be
extremely surprised.
I want to talk about what it means to me to be Canadian. My
father chose to come to this country nearly 70 years ago. He
chose Canada. He was very clear about why he did not choose to
become an American. He believed in the different values this
country has, values that we as Canadians share from coast to
coast to coast. Before I could learn to speak, I knew how lucky
I was to be a Canadian. That is why I am in this parliament, to
follow in the great traditions of the people who sat in this
chamber before us and of those who will come after us, to
preserve what this country stands for, not only for Canadians but
for the world.
I am a believer in competition too. But there is no fair
competition when an American magazine can produce absolutely no
new literary product in Canada, yet can come here and steal
revenue from Canadian magazines, making it impossible for them to
survive in the marketplace and to continue communicating with and
to Canadians what this country is about.
1755
The American magazines can mass produce for the American market,
send the same magazine into Canada and therefore discount or
subsidize their advertising rates in Canada. It is called
predatory pricing. This government is here not to allow Canadian
magazines to be put out of business by that kind of unfair
competition.
What is very clear to me is that we also cannot be bullied. When
it comes to doing what is best for this country, we cannot be
bullied by threats against other products in this country. We
have to stand up against that. We have to stand up for the right
of the Government of Canada to govern in the interests of this
country and its people.
Of course what we have with Reform is a party that really wishes
this country were American. It is quite simple. The Reform
Party wants things like recall and referendums. It wants elected
representatives of this country to be the captives of well
heeled, well financed, very powerful lobby groups. That is who
benefits from the kind of policies the Reform Party advocates.
I suggest that the Reform Party listen to Canadians. Listen to
the debate that took place, first with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade
Agreement, then with NAFTA, then with MAI, and then with our
involvement in the World Trade Organization. What Canadians said
among other things was that they want to be able to protect
Canadian culture.
As the world globalizes, we have one superpower in this world, a
superpower that is reaching into every culture, every economy of
the globe. Countries have to be able to stand up and protect
their individual identity. We are prepared to stand up to 80%
competition from foreign magazines and publications with fair
competition.
The Reform Party says to let the marketplace decide. Look at
the history of the country. The marketplace would never have
built a railway across vast empty spaces to create a united
country from Atlantic to Pacific.
The marketplace would never have created a communications
network so that people in the far northern reaches of this
country could be part of what Canadians were saying to each
other, what was important to us and what we were talking about
among ourselves.
The marketplace would never have created a national airlines so
that we could travel and do business and visit relatives anywhere
in the country.
The marketplace would never have said that it wanted a certain
amount of Canadian content on our radio and television stations
because it would have been afraid that featuring Canadian artists
and performers would limit its profits. When those Canadian
content regulations came in I have to say I was one who did not
particularly favour them. I spoke much as the member might have
at the time and I said that Canadian artists are good enough,
they do not need a Canadian kindergarten to protect them from
competition.
I knew within six months that I was wrong because I was hearing
Canadian singers on my radio. I had never heard them before.
Without those content regulations, we would not have had Anne
of Green Gables, we would not have had Anne Murray, we would
not have had Gordon Lightfoot, and we would not have had Shania
Twain, Alanis Morissette and Céline Dion at the Grammys.
It may take members of the Reform Party a similar 30 years to
admit that they were wrong, but we on this side of the House are
here to make sure that there will be Canadian magazines for our
children and grandchildren. There will be Canadian performers.
There will be Canadian transportation and communications systems.
We will not give up the great Canadian dream just because the
Reform Party would rather we were Americans.
That is the dream my father came to this country for. That is
the dream I will protect as long as I live.
1800
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
here this afternoon debating amendments put forth by the Reform
Party. What we have here and what Canadians had to listen to is
somewhat embarrassing.
We have Reformers kowtowing to the U.S., having us run scared
from a free trade agreement that they fully supported and
continue to support. We have the Liberals dancing around the
trade agreement.
Many Canadians, and certainly New Democrats, foresaw our culture
being threatened and the bill is proof that our culture is not
protected. The bill is not perfect but it is an attempt by the
Liberals to at least right some of the wrongs brought about by
free trade.
Throughout this debate I have also heard Reform cry “let the
market decide”. The situation Canadians have seen themselves in
is certainly the marketplace throughout Canada. With the Asian
crisis, everybody was saying “Oh, my gosh, we let the market
decide”.
Since today is International Women's Day and we know we have to
let the market decide and be part of globalization, I want to
take this opportunity to let the market decide and to let
Canadians decide if they want to be part of that. I watched a
news documentary in which a fellow by the name of Robert Ohuras
who was representing an American company in Juaréz, Mexico, was
commenting on a request that was made to change the hours women
and young girls had to work in plants or in factories owned by
Canadians and American companies.
The bodies of 200 women have been found outside in the desert
Juaréz. There was a request made to change their hours of work
so that they would not have to walk home at 1 a.m. Mr. Ohuras'
response was “Don't forget why these companies are in Mexico.
They must be globally competitive. They need to have flexible
hours”.
Do we need to let the market decide? Any time Reformers want to
let the market decide, I want them to think of these women. This
is all part of it. When the market is the only thing left to be
the deciding factor, that is the outcome.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for
this opportunity to address my colleagues, as well as all
Canadians, with respect to Bill C-55, the Foreign Publishers
Advertising Services Act.
This bill will make it an offence for foreign periodical
publishers to sell advertising services on the Canadian market.
This is an important legislative measure for the Canadian
periodical publishing industry, because it will protect the
health of this important cultural industry.
Revenues from advertising services are vital to any periodical
publisher. Without them, periodicals would simply not exist.
Revenues from advertising services pay for such things as
editorial content, the cost of photos, and the development of
new talent.
Bill C-55 will ensure that Canadian publishers have access to the
limited advertising revenue in our country. They will thus
continue to bring Canadians a wealth of diversified articles,
information and viewpoints about their own country.
Over the years, the Canadian periodical publishing industry has
played a very important role in developing our cultural
identity. With the support of the federal government, the
industry has grown.
Forty years ago, there were 660 Canadian periodicals, with an
annual circulation of 28 million copies, representing 20% of all
periodicals sold in Canada.
Today, there are over 1,500 periodicals, with a circulation of
539 million, representing 65% of all periodicals sold in
Canada.
In 1996-97, the Canadian publishing industry brought in
over $1 billion, and provided jobs for close to 6,000 Canadians.
This industry illustrates the success of Canada's cultural
policy, which is why it is important to support this bill.
1805
I want to point out that over 60% of all revenues reported, or
$647 million, came from advertising, and this can go as high as
80% and up for general and special-interest periodicals. Paid
subscriptions and newsstand sales are not enough to ensure the
survival of periodicals.
Members have surely all had periodicals distributed free to
their home or office. These are made possible by the sale of
advertising services.
Advertising revenues are vital, as I will explain. Each page of
advertising pays for one page of editorial content. American
publishers have a net competitive advantage over their Canadian
counterparts when it comes to supplying advertising services to
Canada. This is because they can recycle content for the
Canadian market. Furthermore, the size of the American market
is conducive to economies of scale in the periodical industry.
Bill C-55 seeks to address this unfair situation.
Parliament must ensure the economic survival of the Canadian
periodical publishing industry and the continued prosperity of
Canadian publishers.
As the Minister of Canadian Heritage said, periodicals differ
from other products, in that they are vehicles for the
expression of our unique views and experiences. We want those
views and experiences to be heard.
The bill will not make it difficult to import foreign
periodicals. In this regard, our country is one of the most
open in the world. The United States exports more periodicals
into Canada than do all other countries combined. Foreign
publishers will be able to go on selling their periodicals
without restriction in Canada, and Canadians will have the same
access to foreign periodicals they have always had.
The new legislation will simply ensure that Canadian periodical
publishers have access to the advertising revenues they need to
create periodicals that give voice to our own cultural identity.
Canada is very aware of the advantages and opportunities of
increased globalization, and intends to promote international
trade and establish corresponding rules.
Canada also intends to support our cultural diversity, in which
periodicals play an important role. We believe that these two
goals can coexist.
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill quickly
because, as we have mentioned throughout the debate, it is
important for all Canadians and for Canadian jobs.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier in the debate the government deputy whip
suggested that further debate on the bill was pointless. She
noted that about a dozen Reformers had spoken and the debate was
repetitive.
I would like to take a look for a minute at time allocation
statistics. For example, on Bill C-36 at report stage and third
reading Reform only had 50 minutes of debate on that bill before
time allocation was moved. There was a total of two hours and 15
minutes of debate before time allocation was moved. The total
time of debate before and after time allocation on Bill C-36 was
only three hours of debate by the official opposition, for a
total of nine hours and 12 minutes of debate.
On Bill C-36 at second reading Reform only spoke for one hour
and six minutes before time allocation was moved.
On Bill C-43 Reform spoke for an hour and 56 minutes before time
allocation was moved, and the total debate time on that bill was
3 hours and 19 minutes out of a total of 11 hours and 25 minutes.
These bills are important bill. Bill C-36 was the budget
implementation bill.
Bill C-43 was the custom and revenue agency bill. Not small
potatoes but important bills which the Canadian public expected
to be debated in the House.
1810
At second reading on Bill C-2, the Canada pension plan, the
official opposition only spoke for an hour and 41 minutes. When
time allocation was called Reform had only spoken for an hour and
51 minutes out of a total of 11 hours and 15 minutes of debate
time. That is not much time.
On Bill C-2 at report stage and third reading the official
opposition again only spoke for an hour and 20 minutes before
time allocation was moved. The total debate time was two hours
and 45 minutes.
There are a lot of people concerned about the Canada pension
plan. We saw earlier where the Minister of Finance removed the
individual who was responsible for doing the numbers on the
Canada pension plan. He did not want the real straight goods on
it and he did not want debate to go on in the House on that very
important bill.
Bill C-4 respecting the wheat board is important to Canadians on
the prairies. Reform had a total of eight hours debate on that
bill before time allocation was moved. There was much to be said
about that bill. There were many problems with it. It was of
great interest to Canadians on the prairies.
On Bill C-3, the DNA bill, Reform had two hours and 15 minutes
of debate time before time allocation was moved.
These kinds of numbers are simply unacceptable in a democratic
society. This place is supposed to be about debate. It is
supposed to be about discussion of ideas. We are supposed to
debate the principles behind these bills and what they mean to
Canadian people. We are not supposed to get into derogatory
personal comments and we do not. We debate the issues. That is
what it is supposed to be about. That is what we are talking
about in these bills, the issues at hand. Yet if the government
continually moves time allocation, what is the point of being
here?
The other day when time allocation was moved on a justice bill
my colleague from Wild Rose said “We might as well turn this
over to the judges. There is no point in even being in this
place to try to express the interests and the concerns of the
Canadian public”.
On the equalization bill, Bill C-65, there were three hours and
35 minutes of debate at second reading before time allocation was
moved. It is an important bill, a bill that is especially
important to the province of British Columbia which suffers under
a socialist government. Its economy is in a nose dive and I do
not think we have seen bottom. Yet we are required under the
equalization bill to continue paying the piper.
The bill before us today is an important one. It is a bill that
has a lot to do with the health of Canadian industry. It is a
bill which fails to recognize that about $1 billion a day of
trade is done between Canada and the United States. That does
not mean to say that we have to capitulate to every American
complaint and everything that Americans do not find satisfactory.
Far from it. What it does say is that we have to be reasonable.
Not only is this bill not reasonable, but it fails to recognize
that Canadians can fend for themselves, that there is a place in
the market for Canadian performers, and that there is a place in
the market in Canada for Canadian magazines. They will be
supported by Canadians. Canadians want to hear what other
Canadians have to say about events in the world.
They want to hear about what Canadians have to say about events
taking place in this country. They are not prepared to simply go
to U.S. sources and publications for news and items of interest
to Canadians.
1815
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to order
made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 1
stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions
Nos. 2 to 21.
Hon. David Kilgour (for Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-55 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 11 the
following new clause:
“22. This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of
the Governor in Council.”
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 22
stands deferred.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is
it parliamentary and do the rules permit a vote to be taken on a
motion that has not been debated in the House?
The Deputy Speaker: When time allocation has been applied
in a debate, all the questions necessary to dispose of the stage
of the bill under review at that time must be put forthwith
without debate or amendment. Those were the terms of the motion.
I am complying in every respect with the terms of the motion. I
am afraid the answer to the hon. member for Elk Island is yes.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill.
Call in the members.
1835
[Translation]
Before the taking of the vote:
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1.
[English]
A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 21,
inclusive.
1845
(The House divided on the Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 43
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| Ménard
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 180
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bonwick
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Dumas
| Finlay
| Girard - Bujold
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Plamondon
| Provenzano
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 21 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 22.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree I would propose you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yea, with the exception of the member for Hamilton
West who wishes not to be recorded on this vote.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote
no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, with the
exception of my colleague from Burin—St. George's, who will be
voting no, members of the Progressive-Conservative Party present
will vote yea on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this motion would usurp
the authority of parliament so I would vote against it.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I vote no on
this motion.
1850
(The House divided on Motion No. 22, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Debien
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proud
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 165
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Laliberte
| Lefebvre
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 57
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bonwick
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Dumas
| Finlay
| Girard - Bujold
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Plamondon
| Provenzano
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 22 carried.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): moved
that the bill be concurred.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree I would propose you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal
members voting yea, that is the same Liberal members who voted
yea on Motion No. 22.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members vote
no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members
will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: New Democratic Party will be
voting yes, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, with the exception of my
colleague for Burin—St. George's, who will be voting against
it, all Progressive-Conservative members will vote for this
motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my
constituents, unfettered by party discipline, I will vote in
favour of the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 178
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 44
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bonwick
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Dumas
| Finlay
| Girard - Bujold
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Plamondon
| Provenzano
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
The House resumed from March 5 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing
into effect of the framework agreement on first nation land
management, be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at
the third reading stage of Bill C-49. The question is on the
amendment.
1900
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 44
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| Ménard
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 178
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bonwick
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Dumas
| Finlay
| Girard - Bujold
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Plamondon
| Provenzano
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1910
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| Ménard
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 177
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 45
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bonwick
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Dumas
| Finlay
| Girard - Bujold
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Plamondon
| Provenzano
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
JUSTICE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on February 12 I asked the Minister of Justice some
further questions on what was happening with regard to possession
of child pornography in Canada.
In her answer the parliamentary secretary talked about it being
before the appeal court, that we had intervened, and that it
would be heard on April 26 and April 27. Our argument is that is
too long to wait. Every day in the country that someone is in
possession of child pornography is one day too long. The
government could have stepped in using the charter to make sure
that did not happen.
1915
The parliamentary secretary said:
To repeat what I said in the House, the law is still the law of
the land. It is only one court in the land that has ruled
someone can possess child pornography for personal use but we are
going to be appealing. We are awaiting the decision of the court
of appeal where we have intervened.
One court of the land has ruled that one can do it. Since the
last time I had a chance to ask this question in the House, we
had a case in Vernon where a person actually pleaded guilty to
possession of child pornography. That case was adjourned by the
judge because of the situation of this ruling.
We on this side of the House still say that every day is one day
too long. If we do not get the right decision on April 26 to 29
on this appeal we could then be waiting a lot longer for a
supreme court ruling. That is not good enough.
I quote from the member for Scarborough Southwest in a speech he
delivered in the House on May 11, 1993 when debating the issue of
pornography and pedophiles:
This is crucially important because the only people who are
interested in the possession of child pornography are pedophiles.
I would also say it is true that there are very few passive
pedophiles, if I can put it that way, those who are prepared to
go no further than to look at the pictures.
We also know from various studies that pedophiles prey on
children. There are no one-victim pedophiles. In fact most of
the studies that have been done show that pedophiles, both
heterosexual and homosexual, prey on more than 200 children each
in their lifetimes.
In this case we have a government that is prepared to wait. I
do not think most Canadians want them to wait.
Quoting again from the member for Scarborough Southwest:
What kind of a country do we have if we do not protect our
children from pedophiles? What has our government done about it?
It has done absolutely nothing.
Every child depicted is a victim for life. They are scarred
forever and those are the people we have to protect in this
country.
I could not agree with the member more. Remember this was a
bill in 1993 when Liberal government members were in opposition
and making these kinds of statements. Now that they are in
government they have changed their minds.
He went on:
I do say to the government that in whatever bill it has suddenly
discovered is on the legislative agenda it should provide for the
broadest possible spectrum of what could be defined as child
pornography because I would rather err on the side of protecting
child victims than on the side of protecting child pedophiles.
That is why this government should have taken the action it
could have taken quite a few weeks ago to make sure that
pedophiles in British Columbia cannot possess child pornography.
It always interesting in this House when one finds these
speeches written by members such as one by the member for
Scarborough Southwest who was in the opposition then and now sits
in the government. It is now his government that is allowing
pedophiles in Canada to possess child pornography. It is
prepared to wait until a judge decides, instead of parliament
doing the responsible thing and taking the proper action.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
clearly we are all concerned with the availability of child
pornography in this country. As many have said, it represents
evidence of the sexual abuse and exploitation of children and
perpetuates the message that they are appropriate sexual
partners.
That is why the federal government is intervening in the Sharpe
case before the British Columbia Court of Appeal to vigorously
defend the constitutionality of our laws which prohibit the
possession of child pornography in any form.
We have all had the opportunity in the House to raise our
concerns. Unfortunately the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast and other members of his party have been exploiting this
issue and misinforming the public as well as fearmongering. This
is not a question of pedophiles.
Members will recall at that time the Minister of Justice
stressed the importance of respecting the rule of law,
particularly where we are privileged to live in a free and
democratic country where our Constitution and charter of rights
are respected.
I support the minister's views, as do the majority of the
members of the House. Attorneys general across the country are
still enforcing the law. They are indicating their support for
pursuing this matter through the courts. All of us recognize
that other more drastic approaches would not be in the best
interests of all Canadians.
We know that the Sharpe case has had some impact on British
Columbia where it is binding on provincial court judges. However,
let us be clear. Contrary to what others in the House have
suggested, including the hon. future leader of the so-called
united alternative, cases are not being thrown out of the courts.
A number of cases scheduled to proceed before these judges are
being postponed until after the Sharpe case is heard by the B.C.
court of appeal. Let us not forget that the attorney general of
British Columbia has indicated that cases continue to be
investigated in that province and charges are being laid.
1920
Officials in other provinces are also continuing to enforce the
prohibitions against the possession of child pornography. The
government is confident that the child pornography legislation is
constitutional and will be strongly defending this legislation
before the British Columbia Court of Appeal shortly.
AIRBUS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I can see the air will be thick with party line
today. On November 3, 1998, I brought to the attention of the
House a citation from page 303 of the book Presumed Guilty
by William Kaplan. In it the Prime Minister allegedly discussed
Airbus and mused about a royal commission with an Ottawa
businessman in the summer of 1995. This was several months
before November 20, 1995 when the Prime Minister claimed that he
had learned of the investigation in a Financial Post
article dated November 18, 1995.
I asked the Prime Minister to confirm or deny that particular
conversation took place and would the Prime Minister stand by his
November 1995 statement that he did not discuss Airbus prior to
November. As expected, the Prime Minister did not answer the
question and simply stated that the person who gave him the
information did not give his name and this amounted to an
allegation based on nothing.
Trite, dismissive, nonsense answers are becoming the norm and
Canadians are concerned that the government could be so reckless
in the pursuit of a conviction of an innocent man. Despite the
Liberal government's malicious attack and continued efforts to
win a conviction of some sort against the former prime minister
evidence has never been found to substantiate this cause. This
is a misguided investigation and the facts are disturbingly
clear.
Brian Mulroney is innocent of all wrongdoings and yet the
Liberal government will not cease and desist the RCMP
investigation. The Liberal government has a vendetta against the
former prime minister which stems from the Liberals' days in
opposition. There are growing concerns that the current Prime
Minister's legacy might pale by comparison. The Liberals' plot
for revenge is continuing to cost the taxpayers significant
dollars, $4 million and counting.
It is obvious the Liberal Party has placed its own agenda for
vengeance ahead of the fundamental freedoms of this man. It
appears that while the Liberals are in government these rights do
not have importance for Mr. Mulroney. Mr. Mulroney knows the
Liberal agenda all too well, for he has been presumed guilty from
the very beginning.
Furthermore, the Canadian public has found that its demands for
responsible government in this case have fallen on deaf ears.
The idea of wasting $4 million on the Airbus investigation is
clearly not what the public would want and it is not responsible,
especially when the repeated attempts to find any wrongdoing have
continually come up completely empty.
The Airbus investigation has amounted to an expensive
embarrassment for this government. Yet, like a stubborn mule,
the government would rather continue to waste public money than
admitting that its insatiable obsession with defaming the
character of a former prime minister has led it to getting
nothing more than egg on its face.
There may come a day in a civil action when we will hear from
the important players in this matter, players like Kimberly
Prost, her boss Mr. Corbett, Fraser Fiegenwald, the fictitious
writer Stevie Cameron and possibly even a former justice minister
and solicitor general. The sad results of this vendetta may
truly be made public at that time; all of this done in the face
of deep cuts to RCMP budgets that have resulted in overloading a
computer system, the CPIC information system, cuts that have
affected significantly the ability of police officers to do their
work.
With all that said, the following question begs to be answered
yet again. When will the government simply cut its losses, put
an end to this ill founded investigation and focus on
replenishing scarce police resources for the betterment of
protecting Canadian citizens?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Kaplan's book to which the hon. member referred adds nothing
new to the facts of the Airbus case except for raising unfounded
allegations and inferences.
Contrary to any claims made in the book, the Prime Minister
learned of the letter to the Swiss authorities and the Airbus
investigation only after the letter became public on November 18,
1995. I also remind the hon. member, as the Minister of Justice,
myself and other ministers who have been attacked in this House
by the hon. member have done numerous times, of a settlement
between former Prime Minister Mulroney and the Government of
Canada which was signed on January 5, 1997 and which has been
tabled in the House:
The parties accept that the RCMP, on its own, initiated the
Airbus investigation.
The parties have always acknowledged that the RCMP must continue
investigating any allegations of illegality or wrongdoing brought
to its attention.
The parties accept that the RCMP and the Department of Justice
in sending the request for assistance to Switzerland acted within
their legitimate responsibilities in this manner.
1925
Those are the facts. This is not hearsay. These are not
anonymous quotes, as the member has brought forward.
DEVCO
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, how has the Liberal government misled Cape Bretoners on
Devco? Let me count the ways.
The Minister of Natural Resources said in this House on many
occasions “There is no plan to shut down Devco”. The facts are
different.
The federal government commissioned a study by Nesbitt Burns in
1995 to plan the sale and closure of the Cape Breton Development
Corporation. This plan called for a sale in 1996 or, failing
that, in 1999. The plan has been followed to the letter.
In the fall of 1998 the management of Devco said it did not have
enough money to make the payroll and it had to be bailed out by a
$41 million cheque from Ottawa. Devco's management then spent
$11 million to buy new jacks, new jacks that would only be needed
if new walls were being developed, new mines opened. There was
$11 million worth of jacks, a gift to whomever buys Devco.
At the same time, the corporation sold seven diesel locomotives
without tender, locomotives needed to haul coal, locomotives
needed to provide emergency power to the mine in the event of a
power outage.
While miners have been laid off over the last two years, more
management personnel have been hired.
These examples are just two of the many that prove a pattern of
managed mismanagement at this crown corporation.
From the election of the Liberals in 1993 Devco has suffered
from a slow hemorrhage, a hemorrhage of money, of workers and of
political will. Ultimately that is the central issue. This
government has been unwilling to talk openly about its very
obvious agenda.
The Nesbitt Burns communication synopsis outlined problem areas
for the government that it needed to address in order to
facilitate the divestiture of Devco. A popular call-in show,
Talkback, was cited as an obstacle to easing the sale. In
1998 the show was cancelled following pressure applied by Liberal
advertisers, leaving Cape Bretoners without a forum to exchange
their views.
Every angle was covered. The report raised the issue of
ownership of the coal leases, perceived as being a source of
possible conflict with the provincial government. Just weeks ago
the Liberals in Ottawa announced that the issue had been examined
from a legal perspective and they were confident of their
jurisdiction.
The only thing that changed between then and now was the wave of
change that swept Nova Scotia. That change saw the rejection of
the former minister of health because of his abandonment of the
coal industry and the election of a coal miner's daughter.
I have been on the record on this issue many times. I have
predicted events concerning this process, and despite accusations
of being hysterical from the Liberals, time has unfortunately
proven my predictions correct.
I promised to stand up for the miners when I was elected. I am
here once again to demand accountability from this government. I
call on the government to openly discuss the future of Devco with
Cape Bretoners and, as a first step, to immediately launch a
forensic audit of the crown corporation.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when the Minister of Natural Resources made the government's
announcement of the future direction for Devco, he indicated that
Devco's management wished to review the human resource packages
with union representatives. Some of those discussions have
already been held.
The $111 million in funding which has been approved by the
government for workforce adjustment measures include $60 million
for an early retirement incentive program, $46 million for
severance packages and $5 million for training for employees who
will receive severance packages.
The criteria to determine eligibility for the early retirement
incentive program have not been pulled out of a hat. They are
the criteria that were negotiated between Devco and its unions
through a joint planning committee in 1996. They are the
criteria that Devco's collective agreements indicate shall apply
to the early retirement incentive program for any further
workforce reductions.
I want to make it clear that the early retirement incentive
program has no relationship to the pension benefits that Devco's
employees have earned through participation in one of the
corporation's pension plans. Workers will continue to be
eligible for any earned pension benefits.
I also want to make it clear that the provisions of Devco's
collective agreements with its unions will be honoured.
These provisions indicate that in the event of a site closure
employees shall be laid off in reverse order of seniority.
This means that many of the longer serving employees who will
not be eligible under the early retirement incentive program will
continue to be employed.
[Translation]
The Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m.)