I remind the House that we already have in Quebec a piece of legislation which is working very well. Why leave it to the government to decide when it would have been easy to say: “There is already an act in effect in Quebec. Let us leave it be and not enforce Bill C-54 in Quebec”.

Let me also quote the 1996-97 annual report of Quebec's Commission d'accès à l'information. I want to quote some excerpts because this is a very important document. This is an independent, non partisan organization that has a high credibility in Quebec.

The annual report says:

The commission has examined the consequences of introducing Canada-wide standards and legal principles regarding privacy on the information highway. Under the terms of a proposal submitted to the ministers responsible for setting up this highway, this protection would be based on the voluntary code of practice developed by the Canadian Standards Association.

It is the commission's contention that, if implemented, this proposal would represent a setback on the privacy issue in Quebec.

This contention is based on a comprehensive review of the CSA code. There is good reason to be pleased with the Canadian industry adopting such a code. This marks quite a breakthrough, stemming from an interesting analysis of the OECD guidelines on privacy. However, the CSA code does not meet the objectives of the personal information protection system established under the two Quebec laws, namely to guarantee to all citizens an impartial and fair solution to any problem or conflict that may arise with regard to the protection of this most important aspect of one's privacy. Therefore, the Commission suggested to the Quebec Minister of Culture and Communications that she remind her counterparts that Quebec has such a statutory system in place. According to the Commission—

—the Quebec system is the only response to the challenges of the information highway that respects the rights of citizens.

This is in Quebec. We must realize, of course, that the federal government often pays little attention to what Quebec organizations have to say. Therefore I will quote the federal privacy commissioner, Mr. Bruce Phillips. I will read the

[English]

“Building Canada's Information Economy and Society” is revealing in that it lends priority to economic issues over social issues. As such, the focus on electronic commerce precedes the goal of protecting personal information; the paper also indicates that the federal government wants to engage Canadians in a variety of network activities first and then develop protection of privacy later.

[Translation]

After quoting all these authorities in the area of protection of privacy, the Bloc Quebecois can only represent the consensus that exists in Quebec and vote against Bill C-54.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

1345

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had discussions with representatives of all parties. I believe you would find consent to defer the recorded division requested on the amendment of the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière to second reading of Bill C-54 to the expiry of Government Orders on Tuesday, October 27, 1998.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.  

*  *  *

FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT

Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) moved that Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

She said: Mr. Speaker, Canadian culture is our inheritance from the past. It is our joy in daily lives and it is our gift to the future.

Generations of Canadians who came before us made possible the birth of Canadian television. They did so through extraordinary artistic effort and through an act of national will.

Canadians who went before us made it possible for us to be a world leader in the music industry.

[Translation]

In less that 10 days, I will be in Montreal for the ADISQ gala, hosted by Céline Dion, who is known all over the world not only for her talent, but also for her support of national cultures.

[English]

They did so through exceptional talent and through national will.

Canadians who went before us made it possible for books by and about Canadians to be published in Canada. They did so through hard work and again through a collective national decision.

Generations of Canadians who went before us made it possible for us to have our own magazine industry, to have stories about Canadian information, ideas, news, art, talent, culture and voices.

The results produced by those generations of Canadians are really quite spectacular.

[Translation]

They worked hard to make Canada one of the countries most open to foreign cultures, while building a strong cultural identity that unites us all and shines throughout the world.

The sad reality, as world citizens, is that for the first time in history the number of spoken languages is diminishing. This reality should give us food for thought and raise the alarm. The futures of our respective cultures and cultural diversity are at stake.

1350

[English]

There were difficult and controversial decisions made by previous governments and by previous members of parliament. Those decisions were taken starting with the creation of a national broadcasting system 60 years ago because successive governments believed that culture is central to our identity. They understood that culture is an element of individual, community and national strength. They knew that culture speaks to our heart, to our mind and to our soul as a country.

Today it is our turn as parliamentarians to rise once again to the challenge. It is our turn to ensure the future flourishing of Canadian magazines. It is our turn to show wise stewardship over our cultural birthright and our future. It is our turn to exercise an act of national will.

Magazines like Canadian Legion Magazine are important to Canada. Magazines like Canadian Legion Magazine survive because of the support of the government.

Bringing Canadian magazines to life requires an industry with imagination, dedication and nerves of steel. Bringing Canadian magazines to life entails a belief in cultural autonomy and a love for the free flow of ideas. Bringing Canadian magazines to life requires policies and actions by the Parliament of Canada.

In some ways the challenges that we face today are even more daunting than those faced by previous parliaments. We live in a more connected world. We live in a time when communication barriers are falling everywhere. We live in a country that thrives on exports and competition. And I repeat that we are the most open country in the world for all cultures of the world. We live in a world that thrives on exports and competition in which technology is turning old thinking and old rules on their ears. We live next door to the world's only remaining superpower and dominant cultural influence.

A member asks why we are putting up barriers. We are not putting up barriers. Canadian Legion is a magazine that deserves the support of the government for its voice to be heard. That does not prevent us from reading the American legion's magazine, but we have an opportunity and a responsibility as the Parliament of Canada to provide some space on the world's cultural shelf for our stories to be written about and to be heard.

We can walk into any magazine store in Canada and we will see more American magazines available for sale than any other country in the world. We are not putting up barriers but we reserve the right as a country to have a small space for our own voice.

Part of the role of parliament is to make sure that this voice is there for future generations. The law of the marketplace does not respect the law of cultural diversity upon which this country has been built and this party will continue to support until—

Mr. Charlie Penson: Promotional protection.

Hon. Sheila Copps: It is not promotional protection. The challenge is to address those issues of globalization with real solutions, not to snuff out the Canadian voices, not to fall prey to the globalization trend of those who would say that there is no difference between Canadian and American magazines, not to fall into the trap of claiming that we are building barriers.

These same members of the Reform Party who are crying down legislation that would help protect those Canadian voices are the same members of parliament who want the government to support the Canadian Legion Magazine. If there is anyone opposite who does not want us to directly support the Canadian Legion Magazine, I would dare them to stand in their place today, on the eve of Remembrance Day, and tell us they are against the support of the Canadian people to Legion Magazine. I do not see anyone putting their name forward. The truth is—

An hon. member: How about censorship?

Hon. Sheila Copps: Nobody is talking about censorship. This is not about censorship. This is about multiple voices in a global world.

The truth is that it has never been easy to publish a Canadian magazine. The first one was printed in 1792 by John Howe. The very first magazine was the Nova Scotia Magazine and Comprehensive Review of Literature, Politics, and News. This magazine folded after three years because of high publishing costs, a small domestic audience and the marketing power of far more established publications imported from abroad.

1355

For 206 years Canadians have had to fight hard to ensure the survival and growth of our nation's magazine industry.

I repeat to those who would twist and distort the truth, to those who would sell out the Canadian magazines on the altar of globalization, I want to reinforce the fact that Canada has the most open cultural market in the world. More than 80% of the magazines sold on our newsstands come from other countries. Ninety-five per cent of those magazines are American magazines. And we have no intention of stopping that. We want to see a multiplicity of ideas.

The sale of U.S. magazines in Canada is far and away the largest export of magazines to a single country in any country in the world. There is no other nation that comes within a country mile of our country when it comes to being open to magazines from around the world. If that is protectionist, then I should be a member of the Reform Party.

Some hon. members: No.

Hon. Sheila Copps: That is a thought that would even stop me in my tracks.

This closed market that the Reform Party is talking about should be underscored by the fact that in a small market like Canada there are 71 American magazines with a Canadian circulation of over 30,000.

An hon. member: They would not be there if Canadians did not want them.

Hon. Sheila Copps: Of course. People are very much entitled and open to subscribing to and receiving American magazines. There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that will stop that.

What this legislation will do is it will ensure that when my daughter becomes a mother, her children will be able to read stories about her country, her geography and her history. That will be the legacy of this legislation. If that is protectionist—

The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member will resume after question period. We will now begin Statements by Members.

---

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[English]

GENERATION XX YOUTH CENTRE

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Generation XX Youth Centre in Summerside has just won the 1998 Commonwealth Youth Service Award.

The Generation XX Youth Centre provides a gathering place and programming for youth in a drug and alcohol free environment. The centre was developed by a group of young people under the guidance of Constable Mike Rioux of the Summerside police force.

Together they took an old building which in an earlier life had been a curling club and a trade school and through hard work and dedication to the cause transformed it into a concert hall and Atlantic Canada's only indoor skateboarding facility.

The whole concept originated when a group of teenagers hanging out in a Tim Horton's parking lot was asked to leave by the local police. This was followed by the question “Where do you want us to go?”

Constable Rioux then realized the problem. There was no place for teenagers in Summerside to go. The rest, as they say, is history.

Congratulations to the young people, manager Gordie Whitlock and their mentor, Constable Rioux.

*  *  *

SYDNEY TAR PONDS

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected five years ago, I visited the worst environmental disaster in Canada, the Sydney tar ponds in Nova Scotia. At that time I urged the environment minister to implement a viable long term solution. Two weeks ago I returned to Sydney to find little change. More than 15 years and over $70 million has been wasted and the people of Sydney are still waiting for a resolution.

Yesterday another study was released which concluded that Sydney residents have almost a 50% higher risk of cancer than the rest of Nova Scotia. How much more evidence do federal and provincial governments need to take action on this issue?

In addition, the people next to the coke oven site on Frederick Street must be relocated. We would not live there, why should we expect them to?

Cleaning up Sydney must be a priority. The time for studies is over. The time for action is now.

*  *  *

1400

NORTH-SOUTH CENTRE OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the North-South Centre of the Council of Europe awards a prize to two people for their outstanding achievement in human rights, pluralistic democracy and global solidarity.

This year the north-south prize goes to Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, thus recognizing his work for a treaty banning the production, trade and use of landmines.

The chairman of the north-south centre calls the minister's efforts “an outstanding and very practical contribution to the protection of human rights in a north-south context”.

The other winner is Graca Machel of South Africa for her efforts to protect children from the devastation of war in her native Mozambique.

Tomorrow, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will receive from the President of Portugal in the Portuguese parliament this prestigious award. I invite members of the House to join me in congratulating the award winners, Graca Machel and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

*  *  *

[Translation]

NORTH-SOUTH CENTRE OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, in the Parliament of Portugal, the honourable Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs, will receive the north-south prize awarded by the Council of Europe—

The Speaker: I would remind the hon. member that we do not usually mention the name of members. We must only mention their title.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

Tomorrow, in the Parliament of Portugal, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will receive the north-south prize awarded by the Council of Europe. This prize is awarded each year to two persons, from the northern and southern hemispheres, who distinguished themselves internationally by championing democracy, human rights and solidarity around the world.

The minister has earned this prestigious honour for his relentless effort to ban the production, storage and sale of antipersonnel mines. All Canadians can be proud of his work.

I invite my colleagues in this House to join me in congratulating the recipient of the 1998 north-south prize, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

*  *  *

[English]

AGRICULTURE

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to tell the House and all Canadians of an increasing economic gravity facing thousands of farmers in western Canada.

In 1938 the sale of 26 bushels of wheat would clothe a farmer for the winter. In 1998 it would take 206 bushels to clothe a farmer for the winter. In 1938 the combined property tax to pay the taxes on 640 acres of cultivated land would take a mere 273 bushels. Today on the same section of land it would take 1,443 bushels.

If this economic disaster area does not receive some immediate help, the results will the threefold. First, there will be an increase in abandoned farms. Second, there will be an increase in bankruptcies and, third, there will be an increase in financial foreclosures.

We must not turn our backs on—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair.

*  *  *

DANIELLE CAMPO

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate a fine Canadian athlete from my riding. Danielle Campo, Tecumseh's 13 year old superstar, set several new world records at the world championships for swimmers with disabilities in Christchurch, New Zealand, last week.

Danielle initially clocked a world record in the women's 50 metre freestyle heats and then bested her performance beating out swimmers much older and much bigger than her to win the gold and grab victory for Canada later that day. She has now gone on to win three more gold medals for her team and for Canada.

This young woman's courage, hard work, determination and desire in the face of limitations should be an example to us all as we strive for our dream.

I ask members to join me in congratulating Danielle, her coach Mike Moore, and all the Canadian athletes competing at the world swimmers championships in Christchurch.

*  *  *

[Translation]

CANADIAN NATIONAL

Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, 3,000 CN employees read in the papers that they were about to lose their jobs. This is a rather disrespectful, not to say improper way to make such an announcement. In the meantime, the federal transport and finance ministers expressed their compassion not for the employees about to be laid off, but for the company, stating that they understood the financial reasons behind this decision.

1405

The Bloc Quebecois virulently decries the loss of these jobs at CN and is shocked to see Paul Tellier, as president and CEO of CN, let go of 3,000 workers just to please the market, 3,000 workers who have to take care of their families who will now be facing insecurity and instability.

To quote the Quebec director of the Canadian Auto Workers, this announcement is worse than a baseball bat. He is right, because as we all know by now, swinging a baseball bat is the government's way to show compassion.

*  *  *

[English]

HEALTH RESEARCH AWARENESS WEEK

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, next week is Health Research Awareness Week. I urge Liberals to attend any of the events to be held across Canada during that week. We hope Liberals can learn something about health awareness.

The Prime Minister and his government must allow Canadians the freedom to choose health products. Canadians do not want heavy handed government regulations that classify as drugs things like safe dietary supplements, functional foods and nutriceuticals.

Let us protect the freedom of choice for Canadians to choose natural remedies and cures for healthy lifestyles. Canadians are sick of the Liberal health care system that only deals with people when they need medical treatment.

Canadians want our health system to help us be healthy. Good health can prevent the need for costly medical treatment. We are proud of the efforts of the Association of Canadian Teaching Hospitals in sponsoring Health Research Awareness Week.

*  *  *

BRIAN MULRONEY

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, he has been called a pioneer on a global scale. Free trade, NAFTA, tax reform and privatization, the creation of the Nunavut Territory, commitment to human rights, the UN World Summit for Children, accountability in government, redress for Japanese Canadians, the Canadian Space Agency, an acid rain agreement with the U.S. and the green plan were all examples of his remarkable legacy.

Under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney the deficit was cut in half as a percentage of GDP. Government operational spending was cut by 70%. Inflation reached a 30 year low and the bank rate stood at its lowest level in two decades. It was under Brian Mulroney that Canada first achieved its status as the best country in which to live.

As Brian Mulroney is made a Companion of the Order of Canada we salute his courage in pursuing a renewed Canada, his commitment to preparing our nation for the millennium, his sense of duty and love for his country. To Brian, Mila and the family we say thanks for their profound contribution—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest.

*  *  *

HUNGARY

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 42 years ago tomorrow, on October 23, 1956, the flame of freedom briefly burned to light the darkness of Stalinist Hungarian communism. Thousands died in a revolution for democracy and human rights and against dictatorship. If only these heroic freedom fighters were alive today to see the fruits which the tree of liberty has borne in Hungary nourished as they were by their blood.

Since 1990 successive Hungarian governments have worked to establish a solid democracy that is respectful of minority and human rights. Hungary is now our partner in NATO. Only the passage of time has been able to reveal to us the success that sprang from a revolution so brutally suppressed.

Freedom loving individuals the world over salute those who gave their lives to advance the cause of liberty 42 years ago.

*  *  *

[Translation]

SENIORS

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on October 13, the Canadian government had some good news for seniors.

Starting in 1999, seniors will no longer have to fill out separate forms in addition to their income tax returns for their guaranteed income supplement or spouse's allowance.

Consequently, starting next year, both benefits will be automatically renewed when seniors send their income tax returns by April 30.

Previously, they had to submit a new application every year, before March 31, to continue to receive their guaranteed income supplement or spouse's allowance.

By cutting red tape, our government is making seniors' lives easier.

*  *  *

[English]

FISHERIES

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, after 400 years of self-sufficiency the town of Canso, Nova Scotia, will have to proclaim civic bankruptcy early in the new year. This is a direct result of the policy of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to privatize the fishery. It is a classic example of how the policies of the government can devastate the economy of a small coastal community.

1410

In the town of Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, a processing plant is moving to Newfoundland because DFO will not allow the company to access the northern shrimp allocation. At the same time the Liberal government gives away shrimp to foreign nations, shrimp that could be used to save over 100 jobs in Mulgrave. This is an absolute disgrace.

The government is forcing Canadians on to welfare when all they have ever done and all they want to do is to work and become active members of society. The government and the people who run DFO should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

*  *  *

[Translation]

GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to a study by the Center for Social Justice, the gap between rich and poor keeps getting wider, while the middle class is being squeezed, partly as a result of the current government's social policies.

This gap did not happen by chance. It is due in part to the government's drastic cuts in health, education and income security. Since coming to power, the Liberals have reduced the per capita social transfer from $678 to $386 a year. This gap is also the direct result of the current government's relentless attacks on the unemployed, who have seen their benefits cut by $20 billion.

No matter how adamant the Prime Minister is that children are his number one priority, that his greatest responsibility is towards young people, the figures in the study are calling him to order and requiring him to act so that women, young people and low income families can live with dignity.

*  *  *

[English]

VIOLENCE

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, violence affects us all emotionally, socially and economically, but a simple “can I help you” can make a huge difference. This is the message being presented this week during the YWCA's Week Without Violence.

Forty YWCAs will encourage Canadians to consider the violence they face in their own lives. Their activities include information displays, vigils, poster competitions, guest speakers, music concerts and family fun days. The week will address different types of violence by devoting each day to a different theme.

Week Without Violence has a superb website. It can be reached at www.ywcacanada.ca.

I congratulate the YWCAs in Peterborough and elsewhere on this endeavour and extend their message to all members of the House: get involved and do not be afraid to offer assistance to someone in need.

*  *  *

CHIEF JUSTICE BRIAN DICKSON

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Chief Justice Brian Dickson who passed away on Saturday.

As a young man, Dickson served bravely in the Royal Canadian Artillery in Europe during World War II where he was seriously wounded. When he was later named to the Supreme Court of Canada he said:

In understanding the responsibilities to which I have been called, I dedicate myself to maintain the great tradition of this court, to search for truth and to use such judicial power as is mine to resolve fairly the basic questions about justice and liberty, the rights of the individual and the authority of the state.

He lived up to and surpassed these ideals. I had the privilege of meeting Chief Justice Dickson this spring at defence committee meetings where he vigorously defended the report on the military that bears his name.

As Canada says goodbye to one of her most distinguished sons, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada extends its condolences to his wife Barbara and their four children. We are grateful for the life Chief Justice Dickson led—

The Speaker: The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

*  *  *

WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, October is Women's History Month. As a member of parliament who had the pleasure of teaching Canadian history for many years, I would like to recall the outstanding efforts of Canadian women during the two world wars and in particular during World War II.

Although women did not serve at the front as combat troops in our armed forces, they did play vital roles in support services, perhaps most notably in the field of intelligence. Of course many Canadian women made enormous sacrifices and contributions as part of medical teams often quite close to the fighting. Indeed some women paid the ultimate sacrifice as they gave their lives to help us win World War II.

On the home front women made an invaluable contribution as they worked tirelessly in our factories and on our farms to produce the food, weapons and ammunition necessary for the allies to defeat tyranny in Europe and in the Pacific. Canadian women both overseas and at home made great sacrifices and gave invaluable service during World War II so that we could enjoy the peace and freedom we all cherish.

---

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

1415

[English]

APEC INQUIRY

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's former director of operations, Jean Carle, is heard over and over again on the RCMP APEC audio tapes. But guess who is screening the tapes? The lawyer protecting the Prime Minister at the APEC hearings.

Why is Ivan Whitehall, the Prime Minister's APEC lawyer, being allowed to block access to those tapes?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the matter of these tapes, in today's Ottawa Citizen the member for Kootenay—Columbia is reported to have conceded to reporters that he has no idea what Carle might have been directing the RCMP to do or, indeed whether he may simply have been giving innocuous instructions about arrival and departure times and motorcade routes for the leaders.

Why does the hon. member not admit that when he made his allegations yesterday he did not really know what he was talking about?

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the issue is the tapes. Let me make that very clear for the Deputy Prime Minister.

The solicitor for the Prime Minister is blocking access to the RCMP tapes. This is completely unconscionable and goes against anything reasonable.

I ask again why is the solicitor for the Prime Minister blocking access to the RCMP tapes?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will have to check the accuracy of the hon. member's assertion. It may well be that he does not know anything more about what he is saying today than he did yesterday.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the counsel for the commission has acknowledged that the tapes exist. Yet despite repeated requests by the students for those tapes, they have not had one audio tape produced to them. This is evidence that the Prime Minister's solicitor is burying the tapes. Why?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to today's Ottawa Citizen, RCMP spokesman Sergeant Russ Grabb said in an interview that the police force has turned over all the tapes deemed relevant by the public complaints commission so far. The other allegedly missing tapes are still available and will be turned over when and if they are requested by the commission.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think the problem here is that only the tapes that have been deemed relevant by the solicitor for the Prime Minister have been turned over.

The students were forced to turn over every shred of evidence that they had, including Craig Jones' e-mail to his girlfriend. I mean, come on. Yet the Prime Minister's lawyer refuses to release important audio tapes that will show that the Prime Minister's office directed the police crackdown at APEC.

How can the commission's inquiry be deemed to be fair if the—

The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, I think we ought to check the accuracy of the allegations on which the hon. member bases her question.

In the past they have often been quite wrong in the allegations behind their questions. We had better find out whether they know any more today than they did on these matters in past days.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we know the tapes exist. The real issue here is why is the government vetting any of the material being dealt with by an independent commission.

Can the Prime Minister give Canadians the assurance that all evidence will be turned over to this commission without being vetted, being uncensored? Will the true information go before the independent commission?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware, the government is co-operating with this independent commission. The hon. member's allegations and innuendoes are unwarranted and unsubstantiated.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what we just learned is more than troubling. This commission was supposed to get to the bottom of the peppergate scandal. Yet we just learned today that audio tapes incriminating the Prime Minister are allegedly being kept in an RCMP safe.

1420

Can the solicitor general tell us whether or not audio tapes are being kept in an RCMP vault?

[English]

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the important person in this case is the counsel for the commission who has not indicated at any time that there was any problem. He says the government is co-operating completely. He is the person who should be speaking to this issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general is responsible for the RCMP. I asked him a very clear question. I would like him to answer my question as freely as if he was on a plane.

Are audio tapes being kept in an RCMP vault, yes or no? Can the minister give me an answer?

[English]

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is the subject of an independent inquiry. The person to whom that question should be addressed is the counsel for the commission who is holding that inquiry.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the peppergate scandal smells a lot like déjà vu.

We just learned that audio tapes that would be incriminating for the Prime Minister's Office seem to have disappeared. This reminds me a lot of the Somalia inquiry, where lost documents paralyzed the armed forces for a whole day.

In the peppergate scandal, is the government about to announce that a special day will be set aside to find the allegedly lost tapes?

[English]

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, the government is co-operating completely. The counsel for the commission confirms that.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government is clearly on the defensive. My question is very simple: What does the government have to hide?

[English]

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's position on this is very clear. This is an important investigation. The public complaints commission is the agency to look into this and to get to the truth. That is exactly what it should be allowed to do.

*  *  *

HEALTH

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Before a Senate committee this morning health protection scientists described under oath how in the course of their work they have been muzzled and gagged, directed to alter documents and have had their files rifled and removed.

With these police state tactics how can scientists do their jobs of protecting the health of Canadians?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the hearings this morning had to do with the process by which the application for approval of something called rBST was carried forward.

So not to lose sight of the facts, I want to stress that rBST has not been approved in Canada. It has not been approved by Health Canada. Even though it has been approved in the States we have said no. We have not given approval. We will not give approval until the safety of that substance is determined to our satisfaction. This has been under review for nine years.

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the health minister can pretend that everything is fine in health protection. Is he saying it is fine to muzzle scientists? Is it fine with the minister to alter documents? Is it fine to secretly remove files?

If the health minister has nothing to hide why not agree to a full and open inquiry to investigate these serious allegations?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, were the member not speaking in the political theatre she would concede that many of these allegations have already been investigated. Some of them are now before the Public Service Staff Relations Board which has had a full hearing and has had this testimony before it. Some of the allegations she mentions go back to 1990. They were the subject of television programs in 1994.

These have been looked at over the years. Now they are before the Public Service Staff Relations Board. Let us let that board consider the evidence and come to its own conclusions.

As far as Health Canada is concerned we will continue to act in the public interest.

*  *  *

1425

APEC INQUIRY

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the public complaints commission needs access to all audio tapes of RCMP officers and Jean Carle's discussions regarding security during the APEC summit. This would be irrefutable evidence of PMO interference in the RCMP.

Did the Prime Minister ask Jean Carle to direct security arrangements so that peaceful Canadian protesters would not upset brutal Asian dictators?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Jean Carle is coming to the commission to testify. Why don't we let him testify. I am sure he will confirm that the Prime Minister acted properly in this matter.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is extremely disturbing that relevant audio tapes are presently held by a forum other than the public complaints commission. It suggests a cover-up either from senior levels of the RCMP, the solicitor general or the Prime Minister.

I ask the solicitor general why were all these recordings not turned over to the public complaints commission as requested. Or is the solicitor general again covering for the Prime Minister?

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said many times, the counsel to the commission has expressed no problem with the availability of information. The government has been very forthright. In fact, there has been a remarkable collection of information made available.

The counsel to the commission and the commission are doing their job and the hon. member should allow them to continue.

*  *  *

HEALTH

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health minister says that BST modified milk has been studied a long time and not approved and it is fine. The interesting thing is that scientists say that $2 million was offered to the department and when this was reported to the department absolutely nothing was done.

I do not care if a television show did expose this. Why is the health department not doing anything if millions of dollars were offered?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we found the member had not read his clippings from the summer. Now we can see the member has not watched television since 1994.

All these allegations in relation to the alleged break in and so on were dealt with when they were reported to officials in 1990 when they allegedly occurred. They were looked into. There were inquiries. The matter became public and aired on a television program.

Let me come back to the real point. The real point is that Health Canada is watching for the safety of Canadians. We have not approved rBST. We will not approve it—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this story gets worse. When the five scientists who were on the top of this file made these complaints what happened to them? Due to the company they were removed from the file.

My question is straightforward. Just who is looking after the safety of our milk in Canada, our scientists whom we trust or some faceless big drug company? Who is looking after us?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has his facts wrong. He should be embarrassed. The member should double check his facts.

In the meantime, Health Canada has not approved rBST. Health Canada will not approve rBST until we are satisfied it is safe notwithstanding the fact it has been approved in the United States and appropriate for sale in Canada.

*  *  *

[Translation]

BUDGET SURPLUS

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government refuses to admit that it has a sizable budget surplus with which it could give back to the provinces the money it took from the health sector. As Alain Dubuc wrote in La Presse: “This fiction about a zero surplus has become an insult to the intelligence and is totally unacceptable in a democracy”.

Will the Prime Minister admit that he has some latitude, since he has already allocated $20 billion to the debt over a period of 15 months, and since the surplus for the first five months of the current fiscal year has already reached $8 billion?

Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we obviously have a surplus for the period to date, but there is a great deal of uncertainty about the future. One third of the world is currently in a recession. We will continue to act in a prudent and responsible way. It is our duty and our plan of action.

1430

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government does have some latitude; what is totally missing is compassion for the people. That is the reality.

I am asking whoever speaks on behalf of the government, someone who is responsible—

Some hon. members: There is no one.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: —whether the government will pledge to give a favourable reply to the provincial finance ministers and give them back the $6.3 billion it owes them for health and social programs?

Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we obviously had to cut transfers in certain areas, on behalf of all Canadians and because of the deficit. But what the Bloc is suggesting is truly irresponsible.

It does not take into account the $1 billion in equalization payments, the $2.1 billion increase in tax points and the $650 million transferred for the infrastructure program. Quebec did not suffer much in net terms.

It is obvious that—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

*  *  *

[English]

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is a new study out which shows that Canadians are getting poorer, yet this government continues to overtax Canadians with one of the most regressive taxes imaginable. The fact is that EI taxes hurt working class Canadians the most.

Why should regular working class Canadians pay for this government's multibillion EI rip-off?

Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is very much a question of choice. It is incumbent upon all of us to look at the alternatives.

Are we going to cut taxes that relate only to eight million taxpayers or are we going to have a tax cut right across the board in the income tax spectrum which would benefit fourteen million taxpayers? This is one of the choices we have to make.

We have cut employment insurance taxes. It was going to $3.30 and we froze it at $3.07. We then cut it to $3. We then cut it to $2.95—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a measure of this government's arrogance that it is trying to make choices with other people's money. That money does not belong to the government, it belongs to workers and employers.

A $350 EI tax cut may not mean much to a cabinet minister, but it means a lot to a fisherman, a waitress or people who are just trying to make it out there. It means a lot to them. This is a regressive tax that hurts people who are working the most.

When is the government simply going to obey the law and give that money back to them? Obey the law. When is it going to do that?

Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last budget we cut $1.4 billion from payroll taxes.

We have some choices to make in terms of a global competitive economy. When we have among the lowest payroll taxes in the G-7 and yet we have the highest personal income taxes, which is going to help Canada the most on a competitive basis? These are some of the choices we have to make.

We are committed to continuing to cut these payroll taxes. That is what we have done in the past—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Drummond.

*  *  *

[Translation]

HEALTH

Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the provinces will agree to sign a three-year plan if the federal government cancels the $6 billion cut in transfer payments for health and social programs.

Will the Minister of Health undertake to give back the money taken away from the provinces for health?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have clarified and specified that health is a key issue, one of our top priorities.

We already increased transfers by $1.5 billion last year—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Hon. Allan Rock: —and the Prime Minister also stated that health would be at the heart of our next major reinvestment.

1435

Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Yet, Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, the Minister of Health said he was prepared to give back to the provinces the money for the health sector.

Now that the government is showing substantial budgetary surpluses, will the minister demand that the provinces be fully reimbursed for the cuts in health transfers, or will he knuckle under to the Minister of Finance as his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, does so well?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the priority for us is health. We have already acted on this priority and it is our intention to deliver on this commitment.

As the Prime Minister said, our next major reinvestment would be in health and, to this end, I plan to work together with my provincial partners.

*  *  *

[English]

CANADIAN HERITAGE

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the House should know that the heritage minister wants her own culture cops. These culture cops would have the right of search and seizure.

Can the minister tell this House why she thinks it is necessary to have her own culture cops?

Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member asked this question. One of the challenges that I made to the Reform Party today was to stand and tell Canadians why it is opposing legislation which provides support to Canadian Legion magazines across the country.

I would like Reform members to stand in their places and answer that question. On the eve of Remembrance Day, it is absolutely disgraceful that the Reform Party does not support Canadian Legion magazines.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for three weeks we have been talking about free speech and democracy. Here we have a minister who wants to start another police force called culture cops.

Does the heritage minister really think this kind of censorship is reasonable in a democratic society?

Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only do I oppose censorship vigorously, I want the Canadian people to be able to read every magazine that they can get their hands on, including Canadian magazines like the Alberta Report, the Legion magazine and Maclean's magazine.

The only party in this House that is supporting censorship is the party that would stifle the voices of Canadian magazines instead of supporting the right of Canadians to tell their stories.

*  *  *

[Translation]

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the latest figures regarding coverage for the unemployed once again provide an indictment of the minister's EI scheme. Only 43% of unemployed workers received benefits in August. Thus 57% of unemployed workers were shamefully made to contribute to the budget surplus.

What is the Minister for Human Resources Development waiting for to take immediate steps to restore the credibility of the system? Is he perhaps waiting for the green light from the finance minister?

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the report is full of statistics on the unemployed. The PQ branch office in Ottawa is trying to confuse everybody and to make workers feel insecure.

The facts are very clear: 78% of Canadians who worked full time for at least three months and left their job with cause or were laid off are covered by the employment insurance system. There is no point in scaring Canadians.

*  *  *

ASBESTOS INDUSTRY

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade. Yesterday at the World Trade Organization, the European Union turned down Canada's request to set up a panel to review France's ban on asbestos. Since this industry is of paramount importance, could the minister clarify the situation?

1440

Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very important question.

At its meeting yesterday, the WTO reviewed our request. We knew the European Union would not agree. As a result, the decision has been postponed by one month.

On November 25 a panel will be automatically set up to examine our complaint. The goal of the Government of Canada, in partnership with the Government of Quebec, the industry and unions—

The Speaker: The member for Skeena.

*  *  *

[English]

HEALTH

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the health minister signed a $12 million agreement with the Gitksan Indian Band in northern B.C. for health care administration.

Now we find that several hundred thousand dollars of this money is invested in the stock market.

When I asked the minister in writing how these funds could be in the stock market, he referred to these funds as surplus funds.

Does the minister really think that the Gitksan band has more money than it needs for health care and that these are in fact surplus funds?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter raised by the member and respond when I am fully informed.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the minister on this matter about five months ago and he has responded, so I think he is informed.

Band members have told me they cannot get travel money when they need to go to Vancouver or Terrace for a CAT scan or to see a specialist. As a matter of fact, I have had band members tell me that when they are in Vancouver they sleep in a pick-up truck because there is no money for them to have a motel room while they are waiting to get a hospital bed.

How can the health minister refer to these funds, in writing, as surplus funds when so many of the band members are so obviously short changed on their health care?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the member when I am fully informed. I will very carefully examine the facts that he has referred to today to determine whether they are accurate.

*  *  *

HEALTH PROTECTION BRANCH

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, testimony given today under oath by Health Canada scientists paints a horrifying picture of what is happening right now in the health protection branch.

They are talking about gag orders and intimidation under this minister and under this government.

Does the minister deny that these serious events occurred and, if not, how does he respond to these very serious allegations?

Will he lift the gag order? Will he let the scientists do their work?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, just to introduce an air of reality to these proceedings, the hearings today concerned the question of rBST which is an additive in milk that is approved in the United States and has been for years.

Health Canada has not approved rBST and it will not approve rBST unless and until we are satisfied that it is safe and appropriate for use in Canada.

On the subject of the alleged gag order, the member should know that after the Senate committee subpoenaed the scientists from Health Canada they first did not want to go. I had officials write to them to encourage them to go and remind them of their obligation to testify.

*  *  *

APEC INQUIRY

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the solicitor general and it concerns the APEC inquiry.

Will the solicitor general tell the House precisely what role the lawyer for the federal government, Ivan Whitehall, played in reviewing RCMP tape recordings of Jean Carle, the Prime Minister's top henchman, at APEC?

Has Whitehall been given any privileged access to review the evidence and, if so, does the minister not recognize that this makes a mockery of the commission's independence and in effect will destroy the credibility of the commission itself?

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rely on the public complaints commission and its counsel for their judgment as to whether they are getting access to all the information they need.

To this point there has been absolutely no complaint.

*  *  *

HEALTH

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr. Speaker, the dreaded mad cow disease that ravaged Britain has jumped the species barrier.

The human version of the disease is identified as CJD. Because of the possibility of infectious agents being in their blood supply the British government has outlawed the use of all U.K. plasma.

1445

In March 1998 Britain closed its own plasma industry and stopped accepting blood from its citizens, all because of the connection between British beef and the mad cow disease which could be harboured in the blood supply system.

What assurances will the minister give us that he is doing everything to protect—

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was a report tabled just last week from an advisory group on this whole question. That report has been received by Health Canada officials and technical people and is being examined very carefully.

I should tell the member in response to his question more broadly that we have a world class surveillance system at Health Canada in relation to contaminants, including CJD. CJD is the subject of an extensive research project that has been started at Health Canada so that we can better understand this new class of prion contaminants in blood. I assure the House we take the risk very seriously.

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr. Speaker, I think this is the same minister who fell asleep at the switch in regard to Canada's tainted blood supply system. Have we not learned something by Krever? When other nations are taking action now to protect their citizens, we want assurances that the same tragedy we are suffering now will not occur again because of inaction by the minister.

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has his chronology a bit wrong. The Krever commission reported when we were in office, inquiring into events that occurred when his party was in office.

*  *  *

NATIONAL PARKS

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last June the Secretary of State for Parks along with the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced that they would protect our national parks from excessive commercial development.

What concrete actions has the secretary of state taken to preserve the natural assets of our parks for future generations, like my son Zachary who is currently causing grief in the gallery?

Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have undertaken a number of steps including reducing the commercial development that will be allowed in Banff, reducing the size of the community, and placing a moratorium on outside commercial development in respect of accommodation. Just yesterday I had the opportunity to announce the formation of a panel which will have as its job to set specific principles that any future development may undergo. All of these things have one very special principle in mind, that we protect our parks not only for today's generation but for Zachary's generation as well.

*  *  *

ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal commercial is over.

The Sydney tar ponds are saturated with cancer causing toxins. Studies have shown that Sydney residents have experienced a 130% increase in the rate of stomach cancer.

I witnessed firsthand this appalling mess. It makes me wonder what would happen if that oozing mass of filth were on the front lawn of Parliament Hill or on a certain lawn in Shawinigan. How long would it take this Liberal government to clean it up then?

Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government is very concerned about the Sydney tar ponds and contamination in the area.

We have worked very closely with a citizens group in Sydney, Nova Scotia, which also has representation from all three levels of government. We have contributed funds to this process which is working to resolve this very serious issue. We have met with the process, the so-called JAG. We have signed an MOU with them. We have met with the affected citizens in the area and we are working with the province to resolve this very serious issue.

*  *  *

[Translation]

PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKERS ADJUSTMENT

Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in order to replace POWA, the government promised in 1996 to develop “various income support measures for those who could no longer find work in the highly competitive labour market”.

Why is the Minister of Human Resources Development not honouring his predecessor's commitment and developing new income support measures to help older workers in this particularly difficult situation?

1450

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed the situation of a number of older workers in Canada is causing us concern. Theirs is a difficult situation.

We had to end the POWA program, which was unfair. It was unfair to everyone in this category.

So, obviously, we provided more funding for active measures in order to help people return to the labour market. We set up a number of programs intended for the population as a whole, including those looking for work. However, we are very concerned by their situation.

*  *  *

[English]

VOLVO CANADA LTD.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Volvo plant in my riding is now occupied by employees afraid for their future. Will this government commit right now to actively do everything in its power to ensure these workers are treated fairly and to try to find a solution to keep these people gainfully employed?

Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned with the future of the workers at the Volvo plant. It is a situation that has resulted from restructuring by the corporation. It is our view that in the short term at least, resolution of a number of differences could best be achieved if the workers and the company could work very quickly to resolve the differences that are currently separating them in the plant itself.

*  *  *

[Translation]

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's provincial counterparts are demanding that he explain why his government is breaking the Employment Insurance Act by imposing excessive insurance contributions on Canadians. The government seems to be circumventing the law in order to keep employment insurance contributions at a needlessly high level.

The Employment Insurance Act stipulates that premiums must be reduced. Does the government intend to pass legislation in order to prevent the premium reduction that is called for in the legislation?

[English]

Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the difficult choices all of us have to make is whether we are going to have a balanced approach in a time when our economic future is not entirely certain. Thank goodness that to date we have taken the steps to get us from a $42 billion deficit down to a place where last year we posted the first surplus. This was a historic achievement.

In terms of where we go in the future, yes we have to be cautiously prudent. We must not go into deficit again. This is primordial.

*  *  *

NATIONAL REVENUE

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Some suggest the provinces will not sign on to the minister's plan for a revenue agency. Three Nova Scotia ministers along with this minister have signed a service contract to be administered by the agency. How would this agreement and the agency benefit the people of Nova Scotia?

Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week we signed a service agreement contract with the Government of Nova Scotia. We also signed a contract to look at Revenue Canada under the new proposed agency to collect for the Workers' Compensation Board. Let me quote Nova Scotia finance minister Don Downe, “This contract builds on the strong co-operative relationship between Nova Scotia and Revenue Canada and provides means for our relationship to evolve under the new agency”. Let me also quote Peter O'Brien, spokesman for the Canadian Federation of Independent—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

*  *  *

LUMBER INDUSTRY

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Greenpeace is attacking the B.C. lumber industry by spreading the lie that all B.C. wood products come from old growth forests. You can bet your bottom dollar that next it will be the lumber industries in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec.

Liberal members in B.C. are strangely silent in the face of an industry in serious economic trouble. When will this Liberal government speak up for British Columbians? When will the Prime Minister stand up for B.C., deny these lies and set the record straight in the courts of the world?

1455

The Speaker: I do not know if I heard the right word, lies. Did the hon. member use the word lies? I prefer that we not use that word if we possibly can.

Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that Hansard will show that this issue was first raised in the House of Commons by Liberal members on the government side.

It is true there are number of organizations that over the course of the past period of time have misconstrued and misinterpreted Canadian forestry practices. This issue has been discussed at length among federal and provincial forestry ministers, including the minister in B.C. We are working on a comprehensive strategy to ensure that the world knows the true story.

*  *  *

[Translation]

BILL C-44

Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while it is increasingly obvious that the Liberal government is trying to crush any and all opposition in Canada, the very idea of making CBC director positions liable to dismissal is disquieting, to say the least.

Given the protests against Bill C-44, the result of which will be to convert the public broadcaster into a state broadcaster, by two past presidents of the CBC, as well as the current one, and more than 20 Canadian reporters, when will the Prime Minister withdraw his Bill C-44?

Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, quasi-judiciary agencies, which must of course retain their independence, will need to have presidents or board members who conduct themselves properly, while all other agencies, whether cultural or otherwise, should have administrators who hold office during pleasure, so that they may be removed when their behaviour warrants it.

*  *  *

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as you know, fishing is very often a family business. During the last eight years, women have worked for their husbands as dockhands and have always qualified for EI benefits. In the last few weeks, the Department of Human Resources Development has turned down EI applications from 40 women because of the arm's length provisions.

Is the Minister of Human Resources Development against women working in the fishing industry or would he agree that his department discriminated against these women?

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely convinced that my department did not discriminate against these women. We have very specific arm's length provisions, because no EI system could work without such rules.

I can assure the hon. member that I will look into the case he has mentioned, but I am sure there has been no discrimination. We do have to abide by the arm's length provisions, which are quite clear. Otherwise, no employment insurance scheme would work.

*  *  *

POVERTY

Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

A report has been released that says Canadian families are poorer today than when the Liberals formed the government in 1993. Children are poorer and the gap between the rich and poor is growing wider yearly.

This government has refused to lift the burden of the tax system from two million low income Canadians by increasing the personal exemption to $10,000. When will the government stop penalizing low income Canadians? When can we expect to see a long term plan for this very serious problem?

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are obviously deeply concerned about the situation of a large number of Canadians, and about the level of poverty in this country. That is why we have made it a focus of our government's programs.

That is why, in partnership with the provinces, we have introduced the national child benefit, which will increase the incomes of low income families in this country by $1.7 billion over the next three years. We have introduced a great many other measures as well, which I hope to have the opportunity to speak about in the House soon.

*  *  *

[English]

FISHERIES

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has given permission to the Mekah people to hunt grey whales with a .50 calibre illegal gun in our backyard. This hunt can smash the 16 year ban on whaling that has saved many species from becoming extinct.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans launch a formal complaint with Washington to stop this hunt and rescind the licences that he has given to hunt these whales?

1500

Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as is usual with members of the Reform Party, they again have their facts wrong. There is a hunt taking place in the United States by the Makah tribe which has a permit for five animals.

If an animal wounded in that hunt in the United States moves into Canadian waters, I have said that I will permit them to follow that whale for humane purposes so that it can be dispatched in a humane way and will not continue to die an agonizing death.

In addition, I have made it clear—

The Speaker: That will bring to a close our question period for today.

*  *  *

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing usual about this; it is very unique. Given the circumstances of the economy, I would like to ask the government House leader what exactly they are doing with legislation for the remainder of this week and the following week to address the economy.

Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member opposite asked this very important question. As usual, the government will continue with its program to respond to Canada's economic and other needs.

This afternoon, for instance, we will resume debate on Bill C-55, the periodicals legislation. On Friday, we will call Bill C-41 respecting the Royal Canadian Mint. If that debate ends tomorrow I do not foresee calling any other business.

On Monday we will have an allotted day to permit the opposition to ask very important questions, hopefully. Next Tuesday we hope to complete Bill C-43 respecting the Revenue Canada agency at second reading.

On Wednesday next we will deal with the Nunavut judges bill, followed by Bill C-49 respecting the equally important issue of native land claims.

1505

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This morning in the justice committee we completed a report and we were unable to table it.

I would seek unanimous consent to allow me to table this report which resolves the outstanding issue of when our committee will study impaired driving.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

---

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[English]

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on the drafting of a bill to amend those sections of the Criminal Code that deal with impaired driving.

I thank the House for its consent. While I am on my feet, I will push my luck a little further and ask if I could also have unanimous consent to move concurrence in the report.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

---

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[English]

FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of parliament is to stand up for Canada, and to stand up for Canada means to play by the rules.

That is why Canada is implementing every element of the World Trade Organization decision on magazines. The tariff code measure will be eliminated. The excise tax measure will be eliminated. Postal rules will be altered.

To stand up for Canada means to respect the bodies that make our shared globe function, but it also means to stand up for Canadian culture.

[Translation]

Under the bill introduced in the House of Commons, only Canadian publishers will have the right to sell advertisement directed at the Canadian market.

Advertisement revenues allow us to sustain Canadian writings, to promote Canadian viewpoints and to see our own stories. They also allow to sustain writing and production and to publish many periodicals that tell proudly and openly our own stories.

Advertisement revenues represent 60 % of Canadian periodical revenues. Canada cannot allow foreign publishers to chip away at our advertisement market and thus harm an essential part of our culture and identity.

[English]

Parliament is not being asked to support censorship. Parliament is being asked to prohibit the sale and distribution of advertising services directed specifically at the Canadian market by non-Canadian publishers. Parliament is being asked to put in place fines for foreign publishers that attempt to violate these laws.

What is at stake here is the capacity of a country to secure and promote its own culture. What is at stake is Canadian content, stories by Canadians for Canadians and the world. What is at stake is the collective and individual capacity of thousands of our writers, editors, photographers, publishers and entrepreneurs. What is at stake is cultural diversity in the world.

1510

Let me address some of the criticisms directed at the legislation. There are those, particularly in the Reform Party, who say that if a Canadian magazine cannot compete then it should not exist. What kind of a level playing field is it if there are no editorial costs for foreign publications that can come into Canada and skim the gravy off advertising revenues? This is not about competing for readers. Canadian magazines are happy to compete for readers. It is about Canadian advertising revenues nourishing an industry and giving it a capacity to exist.

I must underscore the fact that Canadian magazine policy supports magazines like Legion Magazine which tells the stories of Canadian war heroes to Canadians. It is absolutely shameful a party that claims to support the grassroots across the country is opposing legislation which would provide continued existence to Legion Magazine, a magazine that by the way has indicated it needs this support to survive.

This is about foreign magazines whose costs are already covered with foreign content coming in and squeezing the lifeblood out of Canadian stories. It is about ensuring the future of Canadian farm magazines. The Canadian Corn Producers Association—

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: They do not need your help, Sheila. Nor do they want it.

Hon. Sheila Copps: I hear the member. Approximately $45 million in postal subsidies are going out to organizations as diverse as the Ontario Corn Producers Association. Those organizations have indicated very clearly to the government that they support the policy and they support the government because they want their voices heard in the Canadian agricultural industry.

This is about the future of Canadian magazines for veterans, Canadian magazines for fishermen, Canadian news magazines, business magazines like BC Business Magazine which has supported the policy put forward by the government, and Canadian scholarly and consumer magazines. This is about making sure that we have Canadian kids magazines to tell stories for our kids.

There is also criticism from those who say the legislation may upset the United States. Those opposite seem to forget the reason they were elected to the Parliament of Canada was to fight for the interest and the survival of their country. Those people who say the legislation will upset the United States must understand the fact that no country on earth has ever imported and read as many magazines per capita as Canada now imports from the United States. The legislation will keep that market open.

No country in the history of the globe has ever exported as many magazines per capita to any other country in the world as has the United States to the Canadian market. We are more open to American magazines than any other country in the world.

Can we imagine the reaction of Americans if they walked into their neighbourhood smoke shop and saw that 80% of the magazines being sold on the rack were Canadian magazines? That is what we would like our American neighbours to think about.

The United States is our closest ally and friend. We welcome American cultural influences with open arms, but we have a responsibility and a legacy to our children to stand up for Canada. With serious respect, we will not subject as has been suggested in some quarters Canada's laws to scrutiny and approval by the United States before we pass them.

Can we imagine the United States Congress putting a bill before parliament before it passed its own legislation? The simple fact is that unless Canadians stand up for culture, who will? Unless Canada stands up for Canadian interests, who will? Of course there are risks in acting but there is a far greater risk in doing nothing.

1515

There is a far greater risk in the cultural cowardice being shown by the members of the Reform Party. There is a far greater risk in failing to stand up for Canada's legitimate interests.

[Translation]

Some critics think that governments should not get involved in policies to help periodicals. But the answer to that is simple: if Canada does not support Canadian culture, if Quebeckers and the Quebec government do not support Quebec culture, who will?

[English]

Unless we stand up for our interests who will? Forty years ago there were only a handful of Canadian magazines. The government of Prime Minister Lester Pearson saw a need to act in the national and public interest to create a framework, not to write the magazines, not to censor the magazines and not to block other magazines, but to create a basis for 1,500 Canadian magazines that we all enjoy.

This Christmas I want my daughter to be able to read about Canadian tradition. I want her to read about my sister-in-law's tourtiere. I also want her to read about how I prepare my garden in Canada for our Canadian winters. I do not want her to have to read a magazine that celebrates American holidays, American culture and American values because it is the only choice she has. That is what is at stake.

From L'Actualité to Western Living, from Vancouver magazine to Canadian Geographic, from Maclean's to Canadian Gardening, 1,500 magazines in our country now tell us the story of who we are. They talk about our way of life. They allow us to see the regions of the country we do not have a chance to visit personally. They allow us to read the stories of all the ages, from kindergarten to great-grandparent.

Maybe we could do nothing to ensure the chance for these magazines to survive but we would be the losers. The losers especially would be our children.

The other suggestion by those cultural cowards is that we should test the bill in the courts before we bring it into parliament. I suggest that such an approach compromises the democratic, judicial and parliamentary principles that say that the highest place for laws to be made and the responsibility for those laws reposes in the Parliament of Canada. Those naysayers would tie the hands of parliament and make us hostage to every group that did not like a proposed law.

We will not compromise Canada's basic legislative rights as a nation by seeking external approval from outside governments before legislating in Canada's national interest.

I would like to add to the point made over and over again by the Minister for International Trade. Advertising services are just that, services. Services are subject to the general agreement on services. The measure before parliament is absolutely and completely consistent with Canada's international obligations under that agreement.

I underscore another point that has been made over and over in the past few months. This bill will not oppose any foreign publisher's ability to export products into the Canadian market. We will continue to have and nurture the most open magazine market in the world. This will not affect existing commercial operations.

The objectives of Canada on this matter are fair. The approach taken in this bill is fair. The need for action is clear. The need for speed is vital. There are no taxes proposed by this bill. There are no subsidies in this bill. There is no restriction on the circulation of foreign goods proposed by this bill.

[Translation]

This bill shows that we are committed to regulating advertising services to develop our own policies reflecting the nature of our country and the identity of our people.

Canadian cultural achievements are not a coincidence. Achievements in our culture and our country require the work, the intelligence, the dedication and the creativity of many individuals and of parliament.

To contribute to these achievements, Canadian citizens must resolve to promote Canadian content and to support Canadian culture.

1520

[English]

That is why the bill to establish the foreign publishers advertising services act is before parliament. It is not about parliament acting in the government's interest or in parliament's interest. It is about parliament acting in the interests of Canada.

Advertising revenues are the backbone of Canadian magazines and the fuel for a crucial vehicle of social, economic, political and cultural expression of our nation. What we seek as Canadians is a chance to hear our own stories, to see our own creators, to watch our own talent and to hear our own voices at home and abroad.

The new bill before the House is in support of a cultural heritage grounded in history and handed to our generation by generations of parliamentarians who had the courage to make a difference in the past.

This bill upholds longstanding Canadian cultural objectives and it upholds and supports the right of Canada and the right of Canadians to advance and promote Canadian culture and by doing so to advance and promote our identity and our nationhood.

Members of parliament who truly believe that Canada is a nation worth supporting and preserving have no option but to support this legislation.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I ask for unanimous consent of the House to have the minister answer questions on her presentation.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, unfortunately the minister is still living in the seventies. This is the nineties and we have to accept that the world and society change.

Prior to my coming to the House this afternoon I attended a meeting of the heritage committee and we had before us the chairman of the National Film Board. What refreshing ideas I heard this morning.

I asked her about culture because she was before the committee talking about Canadian culture policy. I asked the chairman in terms of promotion or protection which would she prefer. She said there was a time when this country probably needed protection and I agree. In the nineties with changing technologies her own statement was protection is less and less sustainable. We know what that means. That means we cannot afford to continue to give grants and subsidies and put censorship in place.

The chairman of the National Film Board stated there is no problem with Canadian content because Canadians want to buy and watch and hear things that are Canadian.

She told us about the National Film Board and its super success. The National Film Board has promoted Canada around the world. It has done a great job, even with reduced funding. The chairman told the committee that one of the problems in this country is that we do not have a master plan for cultural policy. Everything is a little piece here, a little piece there. She has a lot of good advice for all of us in this House.

The system is so convoluted that we need to streamline our system in cultural policy. There is too much overlap. There is too much overlap.

1525

Other advice she gives the committee is that we have to follow the right paradigm. We cannot continue to do things we have done in the past. That is excellent advice.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to intervene as critic for Canadian heritage on behalf of the official opposition on the bill at second reading. Most important, I am speaking on behalf of Canadians. While the minister may speak on behalf of the Government of Canada I will speak from the opposition benches for Canadians and their parliament. It is my job to make certain the interests of Canadians are served by the bill. Whose interests would this law serve? That is a good question.

More fundamental, it is my job to make sure this bill is necessary. If there is one thing Canadians do not need it is one more unnecessary law. Does it address a real problem or is the bill a solution in search of a problem? That is an interesting question. It is my job to make sure the bill is not a bad law. No law in a particular area of policy is better than a bad law that leads to unintended consequences.

I call the attention of the government and the House to what I hope are unintended consequences of the bill. We also have to think about how a law with international implications reflects on Canada. Does it reflect well? How will it be received on a world stage? We are a global community. What does Bill C-55 say about Canada? Is this a law crafted so that it prepares Canada for the 21st century? Does this law try to perpetuate a tired old policy better suited to the 19th century?

Most important, it is my job to see that if this bill cuts back the freedoms Canadians enjoy and if it limits our freedoms members of the House will want to make sure that is justified. If this bill would roll back freedoms without any good reason then the House should not leave sober second thought to the unelected place. We know where that is.

The duly elected members of parliament should stand to oppose a bad law to preserve the freedoms and protect the interests of Canadians who elected them. That is true irrespective of where we sit in this place.

Bill C-55, the foreign publishers advertising services act, is Canada's response to the World Trade Organization, the WTO dispute settlement panel and the WTO appellate body's ruling issued in March and June 1997. The WTO ruled against Canada's punitive tariffs and tax measures against split run editions of foreign magazines and hidden postal subsidies for Canadian magazines. The deadline for Canada's response is October 30, 1998.

In an attempt to overcome the ruling this bill construes advertising not as a good but instead Bill C-55 creates a statutory definition of advertising as a service. What is a split run edition? “Magazines with editorial content broadly similar to their foreign original but with advertising aimed at a Canadian audience”.

Why does the Minister of Canadian Heritage target split run editions? A press release from the day she tabled Bill C-55, October 8, 1998 says: “Under the act only Canadian periodical publishers will be able to sell advertising services aimed primarily at the Canadian market to Canadian advertisers”.

In the same press release the minister says: “More than 80% of magazines sold at Canadian news stands are foreign, most from the United States”. Does the heritage minister's assertion stand up? The short answer is no. The minister's own department admits that at least 50% of magazines sold in Canada are Canadian magazines.

1530

Let me repeat that the Department of Canadian Heritage admits that at least 50% of the magazines sold in Canada are Canadian magazines. The minister appears to be concocting a need by choosing her statistics very selectively.

Further, the minister knows that 75% of all magazines read by Canadians are read in the home. These are magazines they subscribe to or receive by controlled circulation. What is controlled circulation? They are the magazines we receive with our newspapers or are otherwise distributed directly to our homes, in most cases at no cost. These 94% of magazines received by subscription or by controlled circulation are Canadian owned. This leaves me to ask the following question of the Minister of Canadian Heritage: What problem is the minister trying to fix? Why is the minister looking for a problem when none exists?

Bill C-55 is a solution in search of a problem. Whose interest is the heritage minister trying to defend? Canadians? They already read Canadian magazines with a Canadian viewpoint. Magazines like Maclean's, Saturday Night and Chatelaine are already well read. If we include newspapers, we are well supplied with a Canadian outlook on ourselves and on the world. Canadian readership for Canadian publications already supports a healthy Canadian advertising market. Again, whose interest is the heritage minister trying to defend?

If the heritage minister really wants to do something for Canadian magazines she would do well to heed the advice of the defence minister. In a speech delivered January 17, 1997 he said “Perhaps in a new digital world, policies of cultural promotion make more sense than traditional policies of protection”. Promotion, not protection. Promotion, yes, but this bill does not promote, it protects an industry that is already healthy.

This bill is really unnecessary. That in itself suggests that Bill C-55 is a bad law. There are other problems with Bill C-55 that make it a bad law.

Bill C-55 tries to redefine magazine advertising as a service, but the redefinition of advertising as a service is contrived. Magazine advertising is printed on paper with ink and appears in thousands of magazines. The advertising is a tangible good. We can see it, touch it, write on it, pick it up, tear it out or crumple it up. Magazines sell advertising space, not an advertising service. The minister is inventing a definition that is not based on reality.

The minister has introduced Bill C-55 in response to rulings from the World Trade Organization, a dispute settlement panel and appellate body. These rulings were issued in March and June 1997 against Canada's punitive tariff and tax measures, against split run editions of foreign magazines and hidden postal subsidies for Canadian magazines.

The minister wants to protect us against the dangerous incursion of publications like the New England Journal of Medicine.

Let us step back for a moment and look at the bigger picture of Canada's international trade. Canada is heavily dependent on two-way trade with the United States. In fact we know that trade represents in excess of $1 billion a day. Canadians' standard of living, our jobs, our ability to sell our goods and services is heavily dependent on a good trading relationship with the United States. Therefore, it is proper to ask how the United States has reacted to Bill C-55.

1535

I will read from some remarks released in Geneva by the U.S. trade representative in response to Bill C-55:

On October 8, the Canadian government introduced a bill in Parliament that, if enacted, would ban foreign-owned publishers from using the magazines they publish to carry any advertisement aimed primarily at Canadian consumers.

Unfortunately, it leaves foreign-produced split-run periodicals precisely where they have been for the past 30 years—shut out of the Canadian market.

What is also disturbing about the bill is that it apparently represents Canada's idea of compliance, with the panel and appellate body reports on this subject.

Canada seems to believe that while it may violate the GATT for a government to confiscate 80 percent of the advertising revenues generated by imported split-run magazines, it is perfectly acceptable to ban those advertisements altogether.

Canadian officials are justifying their new bill on the grounds that it is governed by the anti-discrimination provisions of the GATS rather than the GATT. Conveniently, Canada has made no commitments regarding advertising under the GATS.

It is surprising that Canada would believe its GATT v. GATS argument which the panel and the appellate body so soundly rejected in 1997, has taken on credibility in 1998. The clear and intended effect of Canada's proposed legislation is to prevent imported magazines from being used to carry advertisements aimed at the Canadian market.

This is precisely what Canada's 80 percent tax prevents as well.

Taken together, the bill, introduced on October 8 and perpetuation of Canada's postal subsidy scheme, which the Canadian government has also announced, send a very troubling signal regarding Canada's seriousness in abiding by its international obligations and, in particular, in observing both the letter and the spirit of the WTO's dispute settlement rules.

For well over a year Canada has steadfastly refused to disclose any of the alternatives it was considering or to consult with interested governments regarding its compliance.

Then, after dragging out its response for almost 15 months, the Canadian government has suddenly announced proposed replacement measures that are still discriminatory and protectionist.

We strongly urge Canada to reconsider the course it has chosen. The United States intends to react vigorously if that is not the case.

The Asian flu on the financial markets is already affecting Canada. Commodity prices are down and Canadian farmers may be the hardest hit. The prices they are getting for their wheat and barley are trending down. Canadian farmers are more dependent than ever on United States markets. There is already a dispute between the United States and Canada on wheat and barley. Why would we want to do anything to make trade relations between our two countries even worse than they are already?

As Ron Lund of the Association of Canadian Advertisers said, Bill C-55 represents “the thin edge of the wedge” on trade relations between Canada and the United States. If the heritage minister pushes on split run magazines, then all trade is called into question. It could be the tip of the iceberg. The United States already has the support of the World Trade Organization on split run magazines. Canada should stand up for itself when we know we are in the right on trade issues, but why are we setting out to provoke the United States when it has a quasi-judicial ruling in its hip pocket?

The minister is putting Canadian farms, Canadian jobs, the Canadian standard of living and international trade relations at risk with Bill C-55. Does she have the support of the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Industry?

1540

I have shown how this bill is unnecessary. I have shown how Bill C-55 is a bad law from the standpoint of international trade and our domestic economy.

I want to look at what Bill C-55 does to fundamental rights, freedoms and our legal rights. Under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms everyone is guaranteed “freedom of expression, freedom of the press and other media of communication and freedom of association”. Further, under section 8 of the charter, “everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure”.

I want to zero in on the word “unreasonable”. The opposite word “reasonable” appears in section 1 of the charter and I would like to quote that as well:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

We have rights and freedoms under the charter. Those rights and freedoms are guaranteed and are subject only to reasonable limits. Bill C-55 would limit the ability of Canadian advertisers to promote their products and services on the printed pages of magazines. It limits their freedom of expression. It limits their freedom of speech. Bill C-55 limits who publishers and advertisers may associate with in promoting their products and services.

If the heritage minister thought a split run publisher had sold space to a Canadian advertiser she could send out her investigators with Criminal Code powers to search and to seize property. Magazine police. Is this reasonable?

Split run publishers are law-abiding people. Even the threat of Bill C-55 on the Order Paper may be enough to limit split run publishers accepting more advertising from Canadians. So is it reasonable to create a force of magazine police who could be sent out after law-abiding publishers and presses? These people are respectable corporate citizens. They are not common criminals.

Even more, is it reasonable to limit the free expression and the freedom of association in advertising? The Canadian publishing industry is healthy. The commentary news and advertising from Canadian publishers is read by a very large share of the Canadian market. In fact, Canadian publishers are well received abroad. We know that Canadians want to read things that are Canadian and watch films that are Canadian. The market is there.

One Canadian publisher said: “I have been a relentless opponent of these restrictive rules all the time. I have been in this business nearly 30 years. As the proprietor of Saturday Night, I am opposed to the restrictions that representatives of the magazine industry are advocating on American publications”. He continued: “We have been well received in those foreign countries—the U.K., the U.S.A. and Israel—where we do business. Canada should behave as those other countries do”.

In fact, I have even heard that Conrad Black opposes this bill.

Bill C-55 is not reasonable. It is absurd. What is worse, Bill C-55 is being used to put absurd limits on fundamental freedoms and legal rights. Where is the sense in that?

There are also implications for the constitutional division of powers between the provinces and the federal government.

1545

More than once, the minister has shown that she cares little about the impact of federal law and policy on other levels of government. She demonstrated that in her old portfolio of environment. Last summer she undercut her own officials who had worked for months on a plan for the town of Banff. The heritage minister does not play well with others. And here we go again.

Nothing in constitutional or case law puts print media in federal jurisdiction. I refer the House to section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Further, the act intrudes into provincial jurisdiction on property and civil rights. I refer members to subsection 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Bill C-55 cannot be justified under the peace, order and good government power of the federal government.

At this time, I want to read a paragraph from an article put together by the C.D. Howe Institute. It is its summation on this issue of restrictive legislation. I quote from the last page:

Canada should vigorously defend its right to promote its culture through subsidies, tax breaks and sensible content requirements and definitions aimed at ensuring the continued availability to Canadians of products from their own culture, and, in general, a fair competitive environment for domestic cultural productions that are demonstrably of special value to Canadians. Canada should also insist that government policy be able to treat magazines containing Canadian stories aimed at Canadians differently in certain respects from those produced for a foreign audience. But by clinging to measures that increasingly restrict access to information, that threatens Canada's commercial interests, and that possibly accelerate, rather than prevent, cultural assimilation,—

—the federal government instead risks taking Canada down a path toward poorer cultural and economic health, and is diminishing the chances of arriving at a negotiated agreement with other countries on the proper line to draw between free trade and culture.

I could go on at length because there is all kinds of evidence to show that this bill is the wrong thing to do for this government.

It is clear that Bill C-55 is just asking for a series of lengthy and costly legal challenges brought under constitutional law, all at taxpayer expense. All this to deliver a thinly veiled threat.

Bill C-55 does not serve the public interest, Canadians' interests. In fact, it threatens Canadian trade and it threatens jobs and Canadian livelihoods.

Bill C-55 is unnecessary. The Canadian magazine industry is healthy and competitive. It does not require protection. Canadian publishers are well received internationally. Bill C-55 represents a tired 19th century policy. In the 21st century, let us concentrate on promotion, not protection.

With Bill C-55, the heritage minister treads into jurisdictions where federal power and regulation do not belong.

Worst of all, Bill C-55 is a bad law that puts unreasonable limits on free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association and uses magazine police or culture cops, as we have been calling them, to threaten law-abiding citizens. It is a very bad law.

In view of this, I want to move the following amendment. I move:  

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor:

Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers, be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.

1550

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The amendment is receivable.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Madam Speaker, we are debating today, at second reading, Bill C-55 respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.

This bill was made necessary after Sports Illustrated used electronic means to circumvent Tariff 9958, 1965, which prohibits the import of split-run magazines, that is foreign magazines containing advertising directed at the Canadian market. Sports Illustrated circumvented Canadian regulations by electronically importing its editorial content and printing its magazine in Canada.

In 1995, Canada enacted Bill C-103 providing for an 80% excise tax on the earnings from the sale of advertising in such magazines. Four measures including this one were declared contrary to the GATT agreements signed by Canada in 1947 and renewed in 1994.

As a result, Canada had to review its policy of support to magazines and its legislation providing for an 80% excise tax in particular.

Today, the heritage minister is putting forward a bill denying foreign magazines access to the Canadian advertising market. The government's position is that Canada has the right to protect its advertising market because advertising is a service and, under the General Agreement on Trade in Services, advertising is exempt.

Is exempt any industry not included in the list of industries covered by the agreement. There is a cultural exception when an agreement includes a text providing for the exclusion of part of that agreement.

The Bloc Quebecois agrees in principle with the bill at second reading. However, we will listen carefully to the representations that will be made to the committee on this issue. In 1995, former minister Michel Dupuy had assured us that his Bill C-103 was in compliance with international trade rules, and now the Minister of Canadian Heritage is making the same claim.

Let us take a look at the background of this legislation.

In 1990, Time-Warner received assurances from Revenue Canada that its plan to publish a Canadian edition of Sports Illustrated would not contravene tariff number 9958.

On August 15, 1990, Investment Canada confirmed that the magazine Sports Illustrated in Canada would not be subject to the Investment Canada Act.

Consequently, Time-Warner thought it was authorized to move into Canada.

On January 7, 1993, Time-Warner announced that it would publish a split run edition of Sports Illustrated.

Of course, since the Minister of Communication had not been informed of the decisions made by his colleague from industry, he objected, invoking tariff number 9958, to a split run edition of Sports Illustrated in Canada.

1555

On April 5, 1993, Sports Illustrated published its first issue out of Richmond Hill. Since its publication did not extend across the border physically, tariff 9958 did not apply.

Rather than take immediate action, the government ordered a report on the magazine industry in April 1993.

In December 1993, Time Warner announced its intention of increasing the number of split runs from six to twelve a year.

On March 24, 1994, the task force published its report. It recommended applying an excise tax of 80% on split run magazines, but exempting Sports Illustrated on condition that it not publish more than six issues a year. The Canadian industry opposed the latter part of the recommendation, and rightly so.

In December 1995, Bill C-103 was passed.

On March 11, 1996, Mickey Kantor, the American trade secretary, announced that he was filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization to protest, first, the 80% excise tax on split run magazines under Bill C-103, second, the lower postal rates granted Canadian publications, third, the postal subsidy and, fourth, tariff 9958 making it illegal to import split runs into Canada.

On June 30, 1997, the WTO went along with the American arguments and outlawed the four measures for protecting Canadian magazines, stipulating that, since magazines were goods, Canadian policies to protect them had to be consistent with GATT rules on goods.

In August 1997, Canada advised the WTO that it would respect the ruling.

In July and October 1997, the Government of Canada announced a series of measures to comply with the decision of the WTO and promote the Canadian and Quebec magazine industry.

In order to comply with the decision of the WTO, Canada proposed the following, beginning with the tariff code 9958 measure. This code prevented the importing into Canada of split run magazines. It will be repealed by an order in council.

Second, Bill C-103 amended the Excise Act. This amendment authorized the government to levy an 80% excise tax on Canadian advertising revenues declared by periodical publishers. The act will be amended by a ways and means motion.

Third, the postal subsidy. With this measure, Heritage Canada paid Canada Post nearly $50 million to have it accord certain magazines reduced rates. This measure will be maintained, except that Heritage Canada will now put this money into accounts the magazines have with Canada Post.

Fourth, preferential postal rates. This measure would allow Canada Post to give Canadian magazines a preferential rate. The rates for foreign magazines will be reduced to the preferential Canadian rate. This measure will cost Canada Post $16 million.

I will now deal with reaction to the legislation so far.

Canadian publishers applauded the introduction of this legislation. The president of the Magazine Association of Canada, François de Gaspé Beaubien, even accompanied the Minister of Canadian Heritage during the briefing that followed the bill's introduction. For the association, the issue was to avoid having foreign publishers, who make their profits in foreign markets, competing with Canadian magazines by offering lower advertising rates than the Canadians could offer.

Canadian magazines get more than 60% of their revenues from advertising sales. The association also did not want the loss of advertising revenue made up by grants. Not only was this unrealistic—it would have taken hundreds of millions of dollars—but it also involved some ethical issues. What they wanted was a measure that would protect editorial independence.

The Association of Canadian Advertisers declared its intent to challenge the legislation under the charter. However, the legal experts involved in drafting the legislation are of the opinion that the association has little chance of success, because it is merely confirming a practice that has been in existence for several decades in Canada.

1600

The American Secretary of State for Commerce has indicated, however, that he will again challenge these provisions for protecting the Canadian advertising market.

The Financial Post of Saturday, October 10, 1998 reported on page 4 that the United States wants to wage another battle with Canada to block the bill we have before us today, because in their opinion it contains protectionist and discriminatory provisions.

Yet those provisions have but one objective: to prevent U.S. competition with the Canadian magazine industry. The Americans feel that Canada is trying to find some new ploys for getting out of its obligations under GATT. However, the U.S. government has yet to follow up on its original statements.

In its dispute against the United States concerning Sports Illustrated, Canada lost, because it was established, under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, that the magazine was a good and that the 1997 GATT rules did apply, since the advertising must use this good as a vehicle. And, as we all know, there is no cultural exemption clause in the GATT.

By entitling the bill an Act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers, and by prohibiting in clause 3 foreign publishers from supplying advertising services directed at the Canadian market, the government wants to ensure that the legislation before us today deals with advertising and therefore falls under the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade. Since Canada did not include advertising in the list of services subject to the Agreement, the Department of Canadian Heritage believes that its bill, if challenged, will stand up scrutiny at the WTO.

The Bloc Quebecois hopes that the government is right in this case. Even if importation of split run editions has a lesser impact in Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois does not have the slightest interest in seeing the Canadian cultural industry weakened, since several of our magazines are published in symbiosis with Canadian periodicals and would thus be affected by a policy which would open the Canadian advertising market to foreign publishers.

We need to be reminded however that the WTO decision regarding Sports Illustrated shed some light on the weakness of the Canadian vision in terms of protecting our cultural industry in international trade agreements. The WTO decided that advertizing—a service—needing a magazine as a vehicle—a good—a good that could be replaced by other imported goods—the WTO had even compared the content of various magazines—Canada could not exempt these goods from its obligations under the 1994 GATT, a better and improved version of the 1947 GATT.

Thus experts were of the opinion that several measures aimed at protecting culture using a tangible vehicle could lead to complaints to the WTO under the 1994 GATT. The Americans could then circumvent the cultural exemption provided for by NAFTA.

Experts who appeared before the heritage committee and the Canadian Conference of the Arts have urged the Canadian government to take more proactive steps to protect Canadian and Quebec cultural interests under international trade agreements.

As the multilateral agreement on investment, the now infamous MAI, which was being negotiated at the OECD, just hit a major stumbling block, it is timely for the government to adopt a real strategy to defend cultural exemption under every international trade agreement. Of course, in this case, we are talking about a home made cultural exemption protecting the current and future capacity of Canada and Quebec to take measures promoting their respective cultures.

Negotiations are planned for the turn of the century. They are supposed to deal with services and maybe investments. The 1994 GATT contains a major flaw in that it does not provide for cultural exemption. Neither does the General Agreement on Trade in Services. At most, it provides for exemptions for services not on the list of services to which the agreement applies.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore calling on the government to give some thought to the experts' and artists' proposal for a real team to be constituted, which would include artists and representatives from Quebec, with a view to raising awareness across the country of the importance of obtaining a cultural exception.

1605

In this connection, Canada could play the same role as the Minister of Foreign Affairs did in the land mine issue.

This multifaceted team, on which Quebec would play a full role, must be given the expertise and financial resources required for it to do a proper lobbying job. The tools are in place. Now what is needed is the political desire to make use of them, and to get to work.

In Statistic Canada's 1997 edition, in the chapter entitled “Canada, its culture, heritage and identity”, we learn that, in 1994, Canada had 1,400 periodicals, that industry revenues totalled $867 million with $520 million coming from advertising, and that the profit margin was 6% in the anglophone markets and 13% in the francophone markets. In English Canada, 80% of magazines at newsstands are foreign, whereas in Quebec the proportion is 20%, according to the February 26, 1997 issue of La Presse.

The report by the task force on the periodical industry entitled “A matter of balance” indicates, at page 40, that Canadians buy $700 million worth of American magazines, while Americans buy $60 million worth of Canadian magazines. Canada imports from the States 25 times more magazines than it exports there.

Some 95% of Canadian French language periodicals are sold within the province, and Canadian publishers draw only 25% of their circulation revenues within their own market.

According to The Citizen, a Heritage Canada study, which we were unfortunately unable to obtain a copy of, even under the Access to Information Act—and I could even mention that the case is being appealed to the information commissioner—concluded that 40 American magazines were selling well enough in Canada, over 50,000 copies, to make a split run worthwhile; that 40 Canadian magazines were on the point of going bankrupt; and that the American magazines would take over 40% of the advertising revenue invested by Canadians in Canadian magazines, which would be disastrous for this cultural sector if allowed to continue unchecked, unless we take steps to come to its assistance.

As I entered the House, one of my colleagues, the member for Repentigny, handed me the fall 1998 issue of the Canadian Parliamentary Review, volume 21, No. 3, the magazine of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Canada section, which contains a wonderful article by Dennis Browne about Canadian culture's uphill battle with international trade and split runs.

I will, since I have the time, quote from this absolutely extraordinary article, which I urge my Reform Party colleagues to read. Naturally, in a parliamentary democracy, everyone is entitled to one's opinion, and one might be the only one to hold a particular opinion and still be right, but I think it important that the Reform Party members give more thought to the interests of Canadian culture than to party ideology, which sometimes keeps us from seeing clearly.

Here is what Mr. Browne had to say. He writes, on page 21:

To understand the magazine case, we must know a bit about the magazine industry. Following the hon. member's speech, it seems to me he needs to learn a thing or two about the magazine industry. The most important point is that the industry has two income streams and two cost streams. The income streams are earnings from subscriptions and news stand sales, and earnings from the sale of advertising included in the magazine.

The cost streams streams are the cost of the magazine's editorial content, including photos and articles, and the costs of printing and distributing the magazine. In the Sports Illustrated case, it appears the revenues generated from news stand sales and subscriptions are more than adequate to cover the production and distribution costs of this magazine. Prior to the case, Time Warner was selling about 140,000 copies of each edition in Canada. The business had been going on for many years and I do not think the company was losing money.

The other big cost, editorial content, was fully paid for by advertising sold to American advertisers. This case was brought to the WTO by the United States to challenge Canadian measures that effectively denied American magazines access to Canadian advertisers.

Thus the case was not about market access, or even about ordinary profits. It was about super profits. When the editorial content is already paid for and the selling price fully covers the production and distribution costs, practically every dollar paid for Canadian advertising in Sports Illustrated will be pure profit for the publisher. With their existing high levels of circulation in Canada, they already had the cake; so they went for the icing.

The WTO decision is not going to lead to sales of more copies of Sports Illustrated in Canada. It is just going to make the business of selling the same number of copies much more profitable. But what will be the Time Warner's icing is the Canadian magazine publishers' cake. The total amount of money routinely spent by Canadian advertisers in the print media is not increasing. Every Canadian dollar spent for advertising in American magazines will reduce the revenue pool available to Canadian magazine publishers.

There should be no doubt about American magazines being able to attract Canadian advertising. With their editorial costs already being paid, they can readily discount the price for advertising by as much as 80% and still make money.

Canadian publishers will not be able to compete with this type of cut-throat competition. Without their advertising revenues, Canadian magazines will not be able to pay for good quality editorial content. If that is the result, the magazines will appeal less and less to consumers and Canada could lose one of its forums—a very important forum—for cultural expression. To protect the advertising income stream for Canadian magazine publishers, Canada had put in place a combination of measures, four of which were challenged in the WTO case.

The import ban on split-run magazines is clearly a breach of the GATT principle calling for the elimination of quotas. An import ban is the ultimate “quota” since imports are zero. Canada sought to justify the ban under the exception permitting quotas “necessary to secure compliance with domestic regulations”—in this case an income tax regulation that disallows business deductions for advertising placed in split-run editions.

1610

I could read another excerpt from the article which would show that the important thing is, above all, to defend Canada's cultural industry, which is something the Bloc Quebecois has always done with great determination since coming here, for a simple, good and single reason. We in the Bloc Quebecois feel it is important for Canada to have a very strong culture, a very strong identity, because when we are sovereign we want to have as our neighbour a country that is capable of separating its identity from that of its American neighbours, its culture from the American entertainment industry.

Finally, however, the Bloc Quebecois does regret that the Liberals have themselves been responsible for some measures that have been counter-productive to the development of the magazine industry. First of all, they made a substantial reduction in the postal subsidy. In 1989, this was $220 million, and when the Liberals came into power it was $77 million. The previous government had, of course, already drastically cut subsidies, but the Liberals were no more capable of protecting this sector of our cultural industry, for between 1994 and 1998 they reduced the subsidy considerably again, by 40%, so the $77 million of subsidies ended up at $47.3 million.

Second, during the election campaign, the Liberal government, the present Prime Minister at its head, travelled across Canada promising to abolish the GST on all reading material. Yet, as we speak that has still not happened.

1615

With these two counterproductive measures, the Liberal government itself did enormous damage to the cultural industry. Since surpluses are appearing in the Canadian government's budget, I hope that the Liberals will remember their promises to the Canadian people and take measures to promote literacy in Canada and in Quebec by abolishing the GST, at least on reading material, and by increasing subsidies as required, so that the cultural industry of magazines and publishing can do more than just survive.

---

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[English]

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I understand, if you seek it, there would be unanimous consent to allow me to move concurrence in the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I further understand that there is unanimous consent to put the question forthwith without the need of a vote.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent to proceed in such a fashion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

---

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[English]

FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam Speaker, I might just say on the last matter that there may have been consultations but not everybody was consulted. I only gave unanimous consent out of respect for the judgment of the hon. member, not because there had been consultations or discussion.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-55. It has been an interesting debate so far. The contribution of the Reform Party on this matter shows why Liberal government members continue to have it so easy. They bring forward a bill to try to protect Canadian magazines like the Legion Magazine and various other ones. They have what I would call the political advantage of having an official opposition that wants to attack such a proposition in the name of unfettered free enterprise or however it is that they defend this indefensible position.

From the outset I say that the NDP supports the bill with some reservations. Mostly our reservations come in the form of wishing the minister either would or could go further. What Bill C-55 will do, if it succeeds, is entrench the status quo. There is grandparenting of some existing arrangements which I would like to have seen challenged. There is nothing in the bill that particularly promotes Canadian magazines but it is a form of protecting them. I do not see anything wrong with protecting Canadian magazines.

When I listened to my Reform colleagues it was almost as if there was something wrong with the word protect when it came to this matter. It is also important to promote but there is nothing wrong with protect. These are the same people who talk day in and day out about protecting Canadians from various other things like crime and various threats to their security. There is nothing wrong with protecting Canadians from the economic power of the American magazine industry. I do not think that is something we should apologize for.

We are glad that the government has moved to find a way within the limits of the World Trade Organization to do what Canadians have traditionally done in this industry. Our quarrel comes with the fact that government members are not critical enough of the agreements in which they find themselves. I am talking particularly about the WTO.

There is a fundamental contradiction between the ideology, the world view embodied in the World Trade Organization, and the whole notion of the protection of culture. This is something the minister understood well in a previous incarnation. Perhaps she understands it every bit as well in this incarnation but is not as able to say so from where she sits now. However there is the fundamental contradiction between culture and free trade as it is understood at the WTO and NAFTA. The fact is that our previous policy has been tested against the ideology and the world view of the WTO and has been shot down.

1620

It is fine for the government to come forward and try another way. What would also be useful would be for the government to say maybe this should tell us something about the world view of the WTO and about the wisdom of signing these kinds of agreements. That would be refreshing but we have not heard that from the minister and we have not heard it from the government.

Instead what we heard the other day, not from the Minister for Canadian Heritage but from the Minister for International Trade, was a government clinging right to the end to the idea of trying to preserve the multilateral agreement on investment, which many Canadians feel would pose a similar threat to Canadian culture, the kind of threat that various provisions at the WTO now provide.

This is an occasion to reflect on the larger conflict between protecting culture and the whole dominant world view or the dominant global ideology of free trade embodied in the WTO and in NAFTA. That world view was to be embodied in the multilateral agreement on investment but fortunately it will not be because the talks on the MAI at the OECD in Paris have broken down.

Why have they broken down? They broke down because Canadians and others all over the world, but finally the French socialist government, said this was an unacceptable way of setting up the relationship between governments and investors and between governments and corporations.

This relationship that was to be institutionalized through the MAI would have given the rights of investors and corporations a status and power that would have threatened the ability of democratically elected governments to properly exercise their sovereignty in the interest of their respective citizenry, particularly in the area of culture because as we know the French government wanted a complete carve-out of culture. They did not want the MAI to deal with culture at all.

This is an opportunity for us to reflect on this larger question. In her opening speech I heard the minister talk about standing up for Canada. Then she said what I think was kind of strange. She said the way we stand up for Canada is that we abide by the rules set by these global organizations.

I would say that Canada has obligations when it enters into agreements. When we respect those obligations it might be argued that we are doing the right thing from the point of view of international relationships, but I would not call it standing up for Canada if the obligations we are respecting are arguably not in the interest of Canada or in this case of Canadian culture.

I would say standing up for Canada is to point out how inadequate the rules of the particular organization are and seek to change them rather than try to somehow get around them or try another way without really admitting that we have probably signed on to something that we should not have. That is what I think we have here with respect to the Canadian signing of the WTO, which is far different from the GATT.

Whatever could be said about the GATT prior to the creation of the WTO in 1994 there was a voluntary aspect to it. The WTO is a quite different matter. The government should have thought much more seriously than it did before it signed on so uncritically to such an agreement as the WTO.

1625

The member for Dauphin—Swan River who spoke for the Reform Party quoted somebody from the National Film Board—I think it was the chairperson—saying that the whole notion of protection of culture was becoming less and less sustainable. He seemed to indicate that he felt that person was perhaps making a fiscal argument. I was not there so I can only speculate, but I think another way in which protection is becoming less and less sustainable is the agreements the government keeps entering into.

It is not a question of fiscal sustainability. It is a question of sustainability in the face of repeated signing on to agreements like NAFTA and the WTO and the MAI, were it to have been signed, that put in jeopardy our ability to sustain policies which protect Canadian culture. It is not a question of sustainability in any fiscal sense. It is a question of being able to sustain policies in the face of signing agreements that constitute a challenge to these policies. I would say this is something the government ought to be looking at.

It is not a surprise to me, though, that Reform Party members seem so blasé about the potential disappearance of so many Canadian magazines and almost seem to make a virtue out of allowing American magazines to penetrate even further and dominate the Canadian market. I think they have a fascination for American culture that sometimes I find disturbing. We saw that only recently when we heard that the leader of the Reform Party's first reaction when he thought something problematic was happening in the country, that is the sovereignists might win the referendum, was to call the American ambassador and invite him to participate in some post-referendum process.

We support the bill with reservations. We regret that the government is not willing to challenge the agreements that make this kind of legislation possible. We regret that the government continues to pursue in what we think is an uncritical way further agreements like the MAI which would inhibit the ability of the government to act to protect culture. We regret that the minister of trade, instead of saying yes, the MAI is not only dead but should be dead, seems to be saying the MAI is dead and devoting the rest of his life to finding out how it can be revived, to finding a new venue for it perhaps at the WTO.

This does not give us any comfort. It does not give any comfort to Canadians who feel the Canadian government should have taken a position much more like the French government which found the whole underlying premise and intention of the agreement to be inadequate.

With all these reservations and regrets we nonetheless say that the bill should go to committee. We hope in the very limited way the Liberals seem able to act the bill will be successful in protecting Canadian culture and Canadian magazines.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy.

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today before the House to address Bill C-55, the Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act.

First I want to state my position relative to issues including trade. Our party continues to support and believe in the intrinsic strength of trade. We recognize that if we are to enable Canadians to prosper in a global and increasingly competitive environment we need to seek ways to attach the hands of Canadians to the levers of opportunity.

1630

We should not try to protect them from all the risks of globalization if in doing so we prevent them from participating in the opportunities and the rewards potentially gained from full and unfettered participation.

That being the case, we have strong reservations about unfettered free market dogma that may denigrate or reduce our ability to protect our culture. The Conservative government of the past with the free trade agreement sought to protect culture. We recognize that Canadian culture, particularly with a relatively small population—effectively we are a mouse sleeping next to an elephant—is in a unique situation.

We cannot take a cookie cutter approach or some type of economic dogma that will effectively say how we should pursue this. We can believe in free trade. We can believe in achieving success in a global environment and still stand in this parliament to protect the ability of Canadians to speak to each other through cultural vehicles like the Canadian magazine industry.

I believe many of us in this House feel quite strongly about the MAI, that there is a need for and significant benefit to be derived from a multilateral agreement on investment. However, that does not mean any multilateral agreement on investment. There were some serious flaws in the MAI and culture may not have been adequately protected under it. That was the objection France took to the MAI.

That being the case, I believe it is in the best interests of all Canadians for parliamentarians and this government to work toward a multilateral agreement on investment.

It is important before we pursue trade agreements that we increase the level of dialogue between Canadians and their governments. That is why we need to follow the model of the Australian government which in 1996 introduced the Australian model for treaty negotiation which increased significantly the dialogue between the federal and provincial governments. In fact municipal governments should be consulted as well because these governments are affected significantly by the federal government's engagement in trade treaty processes and deserve to be consulted.

If we do that we will help decrease the demonization that has occurred because of globalization. If we open up the process to Canadians and allow them to see clearly that globalization is not all bad we will achieve far more than the current behind closed doors strategy that the government is pursuing.

The government developed this piece of legislation to help protect our Canadian magazine industry following last October's WTO ruling against Canadian imposed excise tax and custom tariffs on split run magazines entering from the U.S. In the ruling the WTO maintained that these measures contravened existing international free trade agreements.

Bill C-55 is a very important piece of legislation. Aside from providing support to our Canadian magazine publishers it sends a clear message to all Canadians that we are intent on protecting and maintaining our cultural sovereignty in the midst of ever increasing pressures from global forces, particularly, as I mentioned before, the U.S. I described it as being analogous to a mouse next to an elephant and in a cultural sense that is very accurate.

The pop culture which emanates from the U.S. is very difficult to compete with, but I would argue that our Canadian cultural policies have resulted in some significant successes by providing an incubational cultural setting to musicians such as Sarah McLachlan, Bryan Adams or K.D. Lang who have gone on to become very successful. These individuals started as a result of cultural policies in Canada which enabled them to grow and develop their skills in the Canadian marketplace first.

The Canadian magazine industry is similar to that. We want to protect our cultural integrity in Canada. It has been a major priority of any trade discussion. Conservative governments fought to protect culture in trade discussions as early as 1988. Most recently the stumbling block in the MAI for both Canada and France was largely due to the reticence of OECD partners to engage in more stringent protection for cultural industries.

1635

It is very important to note that the WTO in its decision was not questioning Canada's right to protect its cultural industries. It objected to a policy that directly targeted U.S. magazines. Rather than target U.S. magazines directly, Bill C-55 will focus its attention on putting restraints on advertising services. Essentially, Bill C-55 will restrict the sale of advertising directed at the Canadian market to Canadian publications.

It should be noted that U.S. magazines can still sell Canadian advertising in their magazines. However, these advertisements must appear throughout their North American publications. They cannot be solely targeted toward the Canadian market.

The bill contains provisions that would allow the government to impose stiff fines as high as $250,000 on foreign publishers who contravene this legislation.

This is a very complex issue and Bill C-55 seeks to address it. I am somewhat concerned about the ability of legislation of this type to control or to effectively try to regulate what is going to become an increasingly difficult industry to regulate. Magazines are one thing. The Internet is another. Increasingly Canadians are going to be reading publications, newspapers, magazines and books on their computers.

These are questions we have to ask. They deserve significant diligence, research and rigour to ensure that we develop public policies that are not only relevant in 1998 but are relevant as we enter the 21st century.

I believe that Bill C-55 is the right legislation now. We have significant concerns about the bill and, hopefully, they can be resolved. We have concerns about the effects of harmonizing commercial postal rates, which I will elaborate on later in my discussion.

Some people may be wondering why we should impose measures to protect our Canadian magazine industry. Reform members have expressed their consternation that we would try to protect the Canadian magazine industry. Reform has 60 culture critics in its caucus. Unfortunately most Canadians do not share their views that Canadian culture should not be protected. We feel very strongly about this in our caucus. That may be one of the defining differences between a Progressive Conservative and Reform leadership at this juncture.

There are very important reasons for us to protect this particular industry. The Canadian magazine industry employs a large number of Canadians and pumps millions of dollars into our economy. It provides employment opportunities to thousands of Canadians. Many of our most distinguished writers have developed their skills through the Canadian magazine industry and have gone on to succeed internationally.

The Canadian market is one of the most open markets in the world for imported magazines. Imports account for 50% of magazine sales in Canada and over 80% of newsstand space. To say that somehow we have inordinate amounts of protection for the Canadian magazine industry which is preventing foreign publications from entering is an easily debunked argument.

Despite the intense competition from foreign magazines, Canadian magazines continue to attract their share of viewers, allowing them to compete in a very competitive industry. At this stage, without this type of legislation, we would not be able to ensure that Canadian magazines would survive.

I look at it from a national unity perspective as well. It is very important for us to protect our ability as Canadians to converse with each other. The Canadian magazine industry plays a very important cultural role in defining who we are as a people and where we stand as a nation. Culture defines our beliefs and our values.

1640

We are not automatically born with a culture. We may be born into a culture, but it is something we learn. It is a nurturing thing. It is one of the things I treasure as a Canadian.

One of the cultural entities I treasure as a Canadian is the CBC. That is another defining difference between a Progressive Conservative and Reform leadership at this juncture, although Reform has a lot of very good members, all of whom will be welcomed into our ranks after Saturday.

We need Canada's magazine industry to prosper so that future generations of young Canadians have the opportunity to learn more about their country and to gain a better understanding of peoples across this great nation. One of the things Canada suffers as a sparsely populated, large geographic mass is that there is not enough opportunity for our peoples to speak with each other and learn more about each other. One of the ways to facilitate that is to protect our magazine industry.

The member for West Nova, a member of our caucus, is on the heritage committee and has studied this issue at length. I always have some concerns about measures that may be viewed as being protectionist. In discussions with him I have learned a great deal about the uniqueness of the Canadian magazine industry and the importance of this industry to our culture, to our young Canadians and to our education system. I share his views that the magazine industry needs to be protected.

Successive governments have implemented laws designed to help Canadian publishers gain sufficient advertising dollars to remain competitive in this market. The issue beginning in 1993 with Sports Illustrated opened the door to competition that would have gutted the Canadian magazine industry if it were allowed to go ahead unfettered.

If we look at the fact that Canadian publishers rely on advertising revenue for anywhere from 65% to 100% of their income, it is imperative that we intervene to protect them against potential competition from U.S. competitors in this very important cultural sector.

Advertising plays a pivotal role in modern day society. It has increasingly become a cornerstone of communication. We are seeing it everywhere. Prior to radio and TV, magazines could depend on receiving the bulk of advertising revenue. However, they have since struggled to maintain their own niche and their own market to survive.

Advertising has changed in the last 10 years more than it has changed in the last 60 years. I would argue that due to technology and emerging global markets we are going to see the Canadian magazine industry and the entire media changing so rapidly that in a fairly short period of time we are going to have to evaluate the real needs and how we are going to go about protecting Canadian culture in the future.

It is going to become increasingly difficult. We have to become more rigorous. We need to work with other countries, particularly countries with a small population base, to develop strategies to protect their cultural interests. At the same time we do not want to hold them back or handcuff them to the Luddite mentality that somehow trade is going to hurt the country. Trade is not the enemy here. However, unfettered global forces, when an incubational industry is not ready, can have a demonstrably negative effect on a particular industry or sector. What we are saying is that we need a transitional strategy to allow Canadian publications to get to the next step.

At some point, and it is already happening, Canadian cultural entities cannot only compete globally but can succeed beyond our wildest dreams globally. However, it takes an incubational structure to allow that to occur in a large country with a very small group of people. We must never forget that.

1645

One size does not fit all in economic policy; one size does not fit all in trade policy. With the combined impact of globalization and what has been in some areas unfettered market forces, we must be careful to ensure we attach people's hands to the labours of the global opportunities and that we provide people with the opportunities to succeed in a global environment. It may be such a thing that Marx may have been wrong about communism, but if we are not careful, it may prove that he was right about capitalism.

We have a great deal of work to do. While we continue to espouse, support and develop freer markets with greater trade opportunities, we must ensure that we do not forget the people we represent. We need to ensure they can compete and succeed in those markets.

It means things like a vibrant cultural industry. It means a strong set of educational policies in Canada to provide young Canadians with the skills to compete and to succeed in a global knowledge based society.

In the national unity context, we are about to see an election in Quebec. Many of us are watching this election, as we have watched those elections in the past, with a great deal of concern and interest. We need to ensure particularly in a national unity context at this critical juncture that we facilitate the ability of Canadians to speak to each other in a very profound way.

This is not the time for allowing the Canadian magazine industry to wither on the vine.

This bill is far from perfect. Despite having a full year to consult with the leading international trade experts, countless legal advisers and representatives from Canada's publishing industry, we find that a number of issues still need to be clarified.

As I mentioned earlier the postal rate changes could have adverse effects on small community based publications. Legion branches, which previously enjoyed postal rate subsidies, could be in danger of losing this assistance. That is a great concern. We do not do enough for our veterans. We need to work harder to support our veterans and our legions. The same could be said for members of religious denominations who provide their congregations with periodicals and updates of church activities.

Because those organizations are not charging their members for their materials, they are no longer entitled to direct postal rate subsidies as are other Canadian magazine publishers. This issue must be addressed by the minister either through amendments or regulations. I am certain the member for West Nova will be providing and promoting appropriate amendments for this.

The last section of the bill which relates to the grandfathering clause must be more clearly defined. As it stands, the bill appears to restrict important contributors to our Canadian magazine industry such as Reader's Digest and Time Warner from ever expanding their present interests to future investment possibilities. I understand that was not the nature or intent of the bill. We have to be careful in this House and in the other place to always beware of the law of unintended consequences and to be extremely careful, rigorous and thorough in the legislation we produce.

In short, we support, with some reservations, Bill C-55. We believe that Canadians need to compete and succeed in a global market, but at the same time we have a vibrant cultural industry in Canada that is too important to throw away.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

I rise today to voice my opposition to Bill C-55, the foreign publishers advertising services act.

I have been in this place for close to one and a half years. I have had the opportunity to observe and interact with members of both sides of the House. At this juncture, I would like to tell my colleague when he said that the Reform member should join his caucus, I extend to him the invitation to come and join us.

1650

What separates the official opposition from the government is not that we have more concern for the people of Canada. What differentiates us is that we have a different view on how to achieve a better society for all.

We both want the same thing, a prosperous and tolerant Canada where all can participate openly. However, while this government feels that this can only be achieved through the cumbersome, heavy hand of central planning and intervention, the official opposition believes that freedom and having faith in people is the right road to take.

At a time when countries around the world are realizing that straight intervention has its limits, this government continues its policies of trying to run almost every facet of Canadian society. Bill C-55 continues this long tradition of Liberal interference in the lives of Canadians.

Before I deal specifically with Bill C-55, allow me to elaborate on my last point.

Many of my Reform colleagues have spent a considerable amount of energy questioning this government on the Canadian Wheat Board. As we know, the wheat board dictates the price at which wheat may be sold, thereby robbing our farming communities of the freedom to sell their goods. Interfering in market forces is no different than the central planning that the east bloc characterized before reaching its senses in the late 1980s.

Another key example is the high taxation levels that Canadians and Canadian businesses continue to endure. Canadians have seen their income shrink as they are forced to transfer more and more of what they earn to the government coffers.

All agree that more money left in the pockets of individuals and businesses will benefit the economy. While the finance minister boasts of balancing the budget, he does not reveal that the way he achieved this was on the backs of Canadian taxpayers and businesses.

The truth of the matter is that taxes have increased since this government took power in 1993. The fact that this government reneged on its commitment to scrap the GST is proof of its commitment to high taxation.

It is no secret there exists a direct correlation between tax levels and job creation. Is it a mere coincidence that the two provinces with the lowest income tax levels, Ontario and my home province of Alberta, lead the nation in creating employment.

Perhaps the minister should ponder whether the Canadian periodical sector could benefit more from lower taxes rather than from eliminating competition.

Today we heard a news report highlighting the plight of Canada's working class. The study released by the Centre for Social Justice states that working families are being devalued in Canada. Families are working harder than they did 10 years ago and have less money to show for their increased efforts. Between 1989 and 1996 the average family suffered a $4,000 decline in their income. Why does the finance minister not realize that the time has come for tax relief for the middle and lower income families and businesses?

I have used the issues of the wheat board and taxes to point to the fact that this government has a track record of intervening in the economy, often with less than stellar consequences.

Bill C-55 continues this Liberal tradition of intervention and state control. While Bill C-55 most definitely has economic ramifications, I would like to focus on its cultural dimensions.

This bill seeks to protect our domestic periodical industry from outside competition. It attempts to do this by prohibiting the right of foreign publications to sell advertising space to companies targeting a Canadian audience. This would free up advertising dollars for Canadian publications.

1655

The Minister of Canadian Heritage introduces this bill claiming it will protect Canadian heritage. However, the minister and indeed this government has failed to recognize the essence of what culture is.

Culture comes as the natural consequence of economic activity. The key word in the last statement is natural. Culture survives and thrives best when it is allowed to grow in a natural state free of artificial crutches and interference. Culture and art must be promoted but never protected and created by the state. When the state starts dictating what culture is, it becomes a slippery slope toward when artistic and cultural freedom end and when state propaganda begins.

I would like to turn my attention to some of the specifics of this piece of legislation. Subclause 20(c) of the bill allows for the minister to make regulations respecting criteria to determine whether advertising services are directed to the Canadian market. By allowing the minister to make orders in council with respect to the nature of advertising, Bill C-55 essentially gives the minister the authority to make laws dealing with international trade without passing them through parliament.

Moreover clauses 4, 5 and 6 allow the minister to create her own culture police to investigate whether foreign publications are carrying advertising geared toward the Canadian market.

An hon. member: Sheila's cops.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Sheila's cops, cultural cops, as my colleague said.

This is an unparalleled power which essentially gives the minister the right to create her own surveillance police. This kind of thing may fly in other countries, but I do not think Canadians will accept such a system.

Because of these issues, I find that Bill C-55 affords the minister authority which goes beyond what our parliamentary democracy should allow.

The bill's extraterritorial application is another area I would like to address. As I have mentioned, the role of Bill C-55 is to protect our domestic periodical industry. The bill makes it an offence for any officer, director or agent of a corporation to run a split run edition, that is, a magazine with editorial content similar to its foreign original but with advertising aimed at the Canadian audience.

It is quite ironic that this government is introducing such a bill after it was so critical of the U.S. Helms-Burton act which sought to hold Canadian companies liable for doing business in Cuba. Perhaps the ministers of heritage and foreign affairs should get together once in a while to ensure that there is some semblance of consistency in the government's policies.

As parliamentarians we must also ask ourselves whether the federal government has the constitutional right to implement Bill C-55. Nothing that I have found either in constitutional or case law puts the area of print media in federal jurisdiction. As well the bill intrudes into provincial jurisdiction in the areas of property and civil rights.

Added to this, the provisions of Bill C-55 contravene sections 2, 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It violates the freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of association. It also violates charter security rights under sections 7 and 8. Furthermore it contravenes the enjoyment of property provisions found in the Canadian bill of rights.

All this evidence indicates that we are dealing with a very poorly drafted piece of legislation which offends the very basic values and laws which we as Canadians hold sacred.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the hon. member. The time has expired. On questions and comments, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

1700

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my hon. colleague. He was pursuing a very interesting train of thought.

I would like him to address the House on what he believes will be the impact of Bill C-55 on the ability of Canadian culture to continue to exist in a fruitful and productive way in this country. That is what all of us in this House wish to have.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, in short, the government should have more faith in Canadian culture. Our cultural industries have what it takes to compete in an open and unfettered market.

In the narrow sense one can fall into the trap of believing that this piece of legislation will benefit the domestic periodical industry. I question whether it will.

Our country's economic and cultural prosperity has been built on foundations of free enterprise. Canadians have no reason to fear competition. On every occasion that we have faced it we have done well. Why is there a need to push the panic button now? This bill is shortsighted.

In the long run our magazine industry can become the pride of the world. Are some Canadian periodicals facing the threat of extinction? The answer is probably yes for some of them if they do not show innovation and results.

I have confidence that competition will bring out the best in our industry and that this sector will grow to become a world renowned first class industry without intervention.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam Speaker, my question for my colleague relates to the fact that if this legislation is found wanting as the previous legislation was found wanting, and the member may correct me if I am mistaken, but I understand that if the legislation is found in the international arena to be lacking, if it is challenged and if Canada loses, retaliatory measures may be sought under the auspices of the international organization to go after another Canadian industry. That potentially puts any other Canadian industry at risk.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, it is a good question. That is something members on the other side should be thinking about. They are here protecting a small industry but they are accusing us of not helping. That is not the issue.

There is a bigger issue is if measures are taken against other industries what will they do then? My colleague is right. Under NAFTA I am sure this bill will be challenged and probably be seen to be wanting, so we will be paying the penalty.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed the comments on Bill C-55.

I think the objective of members from both sides is in part the same, that nobody in this House wants to see Canadian culture be dissolved or diminished in any way. We want to see Canadian culture thrive in the best way possible.

Unfortunately I think for a long time we have had a bit of an inferiority complex with respect to Canadian culture. In travelling to the United States what strikes me very clearly in looking at the American cultural industry versus the Canadian cultural industry is that the Canadian cultural industry can compete and beat the American cultural industry in so many areas.

1705

Nobody in the House would agree that The Simpsons has better educational value than some W5 programs or some CBC documentaries or dramas that are superbly done and are very educational and very well put together. They are far superior than the vast majority of American cultural efforts in those areas.

If there is one thing I hope we can take from the debate today it is that Canadian companies can compete well and they need to take a much more aggressive view compared to what they do south of the border. Magazines, newspapers, television and especially CBC radio do a superb job of competing south of the border. In the U.S. sometimes they can pick up CBC radio. In comparing the Canadian content of CBC radio versus American content it is like night and day. Canadian content is far superior.

When the Minister of Canadian Heritage speaks to the bill, about American companies coming to our country and diluting Canadian magazines so the content withers away, that is simply not true. Our assertion is that Canadian magazines can compete on their own. What Canadian magazines need is not protection but promotion, and not from the government. It should give the magazines and companies the ability and the tools to compete as any company rather than the situation now where we have a tax burden, rules and regulations that restrict the ability of Canadian companies, be they in the advertising industry or somewhere else, to compete against our neighbours south of the border.

The taxes and rules and regulations are the primary reasons why companies cannot compete as successfully as they should with their compatriots south of the border. I implore the ministers on the other side who have responsibility in this area to come together and work with their counterparts to lower the tax burden and eliminate the rules and regulations that exist not only north-south but east-west. That involves cabinet ministers taking a leadership role with their provincial counterparts to work together to try to remove these barriers to trade which is restricted for so long the ability of Canadian companies to function.

We oppose the bill on a number of levels, one being the issue of freedom of speech. Although we are not enamoured in any way with some big international group being able to hammer little Canada, that is not going to happen. We want to ensure that Canadian companies and magazines are going to be competing on a level playing field.

This bill violates what is very dear to the hearts of everybody and something that is a tenet of our country, the charter. I would not say dear to our hearts but the charter exists and we have to live with it. In the charter is the principle that is very dear to Canadians, section 2(b) which says everyone has the fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion, expression, including the freedom of the press and other means of communication. It would be nice if members in the House of Commons had that same freedom under the charter, but that is a subject for another day.

Bill C-55 violates that fundamental freedom and the Canadian Association of Advertisers has spoken against this by saying that it contravenes the ability of advertisers to have the freedom under the charter to compete and engage in advertising across the border. That is why since 1965, although this notion has continued to be pursued by Canadian governments, it has gone absolutely nowhere. It violates the norms of international trade rules and regulations and it has very little to do with being able to protect Canadian culture.

1710

As I said before, since this has been happening since 1965, have we seen Canadian culture go off the map? No. Canadian culture is thriving and Canadian culture can do a lot more and be expanded in a far greater fashion if instead of using government money to promote it we enable individual companies to self-promote.

One thing we can do without using Canadian money, which is actually very interesting, is use our embassies and our foreign services in other parts of the world to promote and provide information to Canadian cultural organizations to disperse Canadian culture in other countries, particularly to our brothers south of the border. The people of the United States would benefit greatly I think from knowing what happens in Canada. Although our border is very porous, we are very close together and they are our greatest neighbours, it is surprising how little many Americans know about us and vice versa. More cultural integration, more trade of information will actually improve the bond that exists between us.

From time to time conflicts do exist, be it on fisheries, whaling or on agricultural products and forestry, and they sour our relationship with our American cousins, but there is still a great deal we can improve on. We take pride in the fact that we have so much trade with the Americans. Eighty per cent of our exports go to the states and we are America's greatest partner. But the fact remains that just scratches the surface. There is so much more that Canadian companies can do south of the border which would be of direct economic benefit to Canadians from coast to coast.

When I was in the United States in March, what struck me was the lack of knowledge on both sides of the border and also the enormous economic opportunities for Canadians south of the border. It is no mistake that last year 46,500 of our best and brightest went to the United States to work. They did not pick the bottom rung. The creme de la creme of Canadians, of our youth, went down there. They went down for many reasons. Americans recognize value for money and recognize the value of Canadians and Canadian expertise.

My colleagues have spoken about the ability and the responsibility the government has in enabling Canadians to stay within our borders by providing tax relief, the elimination of rules and regulations, the educational opportunities that Canadians require here and the investment in research and development required and necessary for us to be competitive. Having said that, there is much that Canadians can do. Canadian companies can compete and can beat American companies on so many levels.

I encourage the Minister for International Trade to work with his counterpart in foreign affairs and the Minister of Finance and members from across party lines. Our critic for international trade would be happy to provide his expert advice to the government on what we can do to improve our economic opportunities abroad.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, the hon. member indicated how many bright Canadians have gone down to the United States.

As he knows, recently it has been reported in Canada for I believe the fifth year running that we are the number one country in the world in which to live. I wonder if he has any statistical information on how many Americans may have come up to Canada in terms of their best and brightest.

Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the information. C.D. Howe has done a recent study on this issue and has come up with statistics. I cannot give him the exact point right now, but if he would like I could find it for him. The bottom line is that the imbalance is huge. The American creme de la creme are simply not coming up to Canada. The best and brightest of Canadians are going down south.

1715

The number one reason has been repeated time and time again. Taxes are far too high. A working family of two in the United States after taxes earns 44% more than a Canadian couple in the same situation. When we speak to Canadian youth who have gone down south they say they would much prefer to live in Canada. They love Canada, but how can Canada compete when they are earning 44% more in the United States? It is not only money. They have opportunities to be the best they can become.

Speaking professionally from a medical point of view, the ability to practise medicine and engage in other professional opportunities in the United States is far greater because of investment in research and development.

There are some enormous opportunities for Canada to do some very innovative things. Perhaps there could be an extension on RRSPs over and beyond what we have now. RRSP moneys could be obligated to be invested into Canadian companies on Canadian shore, resulting in Canadian companies having money to be able to work and having capital to invest.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I listened with great attention to my colleague's speech. I thought he gave a great overview of the issue.

Earlier in the House we heard the minister of heritage refer to why the bill needed to be introduced. Her interventionist approach seems quite inappropriate in this area. Her arguments are based on the assumption that Canadian industry cannot make it on its own without government protection.

Could my colleague shed a bit of light on that aspect of the bill?

Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It gets to the heart of the fundamental difference of opinion between the Reform Party and the government. The issue is how can Canadian culture be the best it can become.

The government believes that protection is the answer. We believe in enabling these companies, magazines and cultural entities to promote. We believe Canadian culture can compete on its own two legs without government intervention and beat other countries rather than exist in an environment where it has to build barriers. Canadian culture should look beyond, embrace a much larger population and show the best of what Canada has to offer.

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am happy to take part today in the debate on Bill C-55, but I am disappointed in the government's approach to responding to the World Trade Organization.

The WTO has asked Canada to redo its law to comply with the ruling made in March and June 1997 against Canada regarding punitive tariffs and tax measures against split run additions. Canada was clearly in contravention of the rules that we signed at this international body. What bothers me most is that Canada has been one of the main proponents at the World Trade Organization and the international body before it, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades, to establish clear rules of conduct for business.

Canada needs this very badly. Our country has large exports. Forty per cent of our gross domestic product is derived from our exports. That is probably more than any other country in the world. More in fact than the United States whose GDP derived from exports is something like 10%.

Canada clearly needs rules, a rule based regime. Canada recognized this a long time ago. Our government introduced legislation back in 1946, 1947 and 1948 and was the main push behind getting the GATT established, recognizing that it would serve Canada's interests. Canada has held an inordinate amount of sway in these international talks.

1720

I was with the Minister for International Trade in Geneva last spring at the ministerial conference of the World Trade Organization. Canada is pushing for more liberalized trade in investment. We are pushing for more rules in areas like services and trying to bring agriculture under the trade rules which have hurt the industry through trade wars and massive subsidies in the past.

Yet, at the very time when we are going down that road with the trade minister and the government, we have the heritage minister seeming to completely contradict the trade minister by not complying with the World Trade Organization ruling and trying to circumvent the World Trade Organization ruling in June of this year by bringing in Bill C-55. The United States has already said that if the bill becomes law it will ask the World Trade Organization to repeal it.

What would happen if that were to happen? I believe it will happen because it is in contravention of the ruling. Rather than complying and being gracious about defeat in this area, the minister of heritage has sort of stuck her finger in the eye of the international dispute body, the World Trade Organization. Effectively she has said that we will not comply; to heck with those guys, we will go our own way.

What would happen if the United States took us to the World Trade Organization because of this legislation? What would happen if the World Trade Organization ruled against us for a second time? Canada does not have to comply because those are the rules of the World Trade Organization, but it certainly should because our international reputation would be tarnished. However we do not have to. We can go on with our silly policy if we want, but any country that takes us to court and gets a ruling in its favour has the right to retaliate. Those are the rules of the GATT. A country has the right to retaliate in kind.

What form could that retaliation take? It could take the form of retaliation in the cultural sector, the agricultural sector, the forestry sector, and even in areas that are not distinctly related to this dispute.

Let us assume that they took retaliation in the area of culture. What does Canada have to lose? We have a very big amount to lose. We have a lot of Canadian entertainers in the cultural sector finding employment in the United States. It is a very big market with some 260 million people. Shania Twain and other entertainers go to Nashville and Hollywood. They do not want their access denied. However, if the ruling went against Canada, and I believe it will, the United States could choose to follow that route. I think we are cutting off our nose to spite our face.

What possible good can come out of this? We have the matter of Canadian advertisers who want to advertise in split-run magazines. It seems to me that they would know what is best for their business. It removes a choice from Canadian advertisers. Do we really need a magazine that is so mediocre that it cannot stand up to competition without support or protection? I think not.

Let us look at some of the magazines that claim they need protection. What would happen to those magazines if the United States said it would not let Americans advertise in Canadian magazines if we did not advertiser in theirs? We can flip through the October 26 edition of Maclean's, one of the magazines we are talking about in this whole issue. What is the ad on the first page? Jaguar. It goes on. Three-quarters of the ads in Maclean's magazine come from outside Canada. Is that the message we want to send around the world, that we are not open to business in Canada? Could it function without ads from Volvo, Subaru, Disney World, IBM, Air France, Oldsmobile and Kodak? I do not know that it could.

1725

We are using foreign money to support our magazines right now. On the other side of the equation we are saying that we cannot let Canadians advertise in magazines such as Sports Illustrated because it does not have enough Canadian content.

The ruling has gone against us once and it will go against us again. Then what will the government do? The United States has the right to retaliate. This time I think it just might get tough. We certainly do not want to go down the road of possibly risking closure of the United States market to our entertainers.

Let us examine the issue of whether the industry needs protection. My colleagues have already made some interesting points by suggesting that it probably does not. I would agree that it probably does not, but the industry certainly warrants promotion.

Canadian trade delegations travel all the time. The Prime Minister is very proud of the January junkets he takes to promote Canadian goods. Incidentally, it seems that he only goes to countries in January that have a temperature of about 30° Celsius. Be that as it may, he is out there promoting Canadian goods and services. The trade minister is out there all the time. Canadian businesses are too.

Why can they not promote Canadian culture? Why can they not promote Canadian entertainers, our magazines, our book industry and our publishing industry? They should be very much a part of that promotion in the same way they promote Canadian agriculture, Canadian forest industries or whatever.

The opposite to that is the approach the heritage minister seems to take, one of protection. I thought the protectionist walls had been broken down a long time ago. We have seen protectionist walls in the past. Sir John A. Macdonald put up high tariff walls after Confederation and essentially destroyed Atlantic Canada's ability to trade with the New England States. As a result it became a welfare state of Canada, and the government wants to go down that road again.

We have an $800 billion industry in Canada. That is the GDP of our country. Protection does not enter into very many of those industries. I can think of only a couple like the supply management sector of agriculture, an industry that basically has no exports. It basically has to look at the Canadian market all by itself. There are other sectors of Canadian industry that do not have competition. Largely they are industries like the power industry. Where that happens, public utilities boards are put in to look after the public interest because no competition can occur.

Why should we be afraid of competition? We are out in the world every day exporting product. The two way trade between Canada and the United States is worth over $1.4 billion a day. They are saying that we cannot compete. All we need is a small piece of the American pie, and I think we are doing very well. Many Canadian artists have already discovered that. That is why Shania Twain travels to Nashville. That is why Terri Clark from Medicine Hat is in Nashville. They are looking at that big market. They are not only serving Canadians. They are out there looking at a much bigger world.

Canadians will not be intimidated. They will look outward. They will look at the global economy. They have enough confidence to take that on, but we have to get things right at home. We have to get the fundamentals right.

When the foreign affairs and international trade standing committee did a study on why small and medium size businesses were not exporting as we believed they should, the message was strong and clear. They said the government had far too much regulation and that the cost of doing business in Canada was too high.

A representative of one small company with under 100 employees came before our committee and said that he had to move his operation to Illinois. He said that he could do better business, that he could trade more effectively back into Canada with his company in Illinois than he could when he was located in Ontario because of interprovincial trade barriers.

Small companies are telling us that is the problem. I suggest that many of these companies such as Maclean's are not small companies at all.

1730

They are relying right now on the international marketplace. They are relying on international investors and companies to advertise in their magazines. I think they can make it. Canadian cultural businesses, small or large, have to face the reality that there is a big world out there. They have to go after a portion of that market. They can do it. We have to get past this myth that subsidies and barriers are a great thing in Canada.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the House for taking up its time. In the normal course of events we have these discussions in the respective lobbies, government and opposition. I wonder if this speaker needed approximately five more minutes to finish his intervention, without a period of question and comment, then we would seek the consent of the House to defer the amendment of the Reform member to be voted on at the expiration of Government Orders on Tuesday, October 27.

If someone else wants to speak, I understand they will refuse that consent. I apologize for taking the House's time on this negotiation on the floor of the House. I have tried to have some discussions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: No.

*  *  *

[Translation]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve advised me in writing that he was unable to introduce his motion during the hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business on Friday, October 23, 1998.

As it was not possible to change positions on the list of priorities, I ask the clerk to drop this motion to the bottom of the list. The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business will, therefore, be suspended and the House will continue to examine the matters before it at that time.

---

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[English]

CRIMINAL CODE

The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-251 to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I compliment the hon. member for Mississauga East for bringing this act forward. Most of the citizens in my riding would overwhelming support this bill which enhances penalties for sexual offences and murders.

I am not the critic for justice. I am not even a lawyer. Our very able critic for justice, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, is a former crown prosecutor. He has outlined the benefits of this bill and endorses it completely. I will follow his recommendation from a professional point of view.

From of a personal point of view I want to add my support. As I said, I am not a justice critic but I am a Canadian. I feel, as I am sure the member who put forth the bill feels, so often criminals get the benefit of the doubt. Some of our structures for offences and imprisonment are not in tune with what the Canadian people think or want. As a member of parliament I serve an area that has two correction facilities in it, a new one for women in Truro, Nova Scotia built in 1993, and the one in Springhill which is multilevel correctional institute.

1735

Correctional Service Canada is probably one of the biggest employers in my riding. It plays a huge role in my riding and everyone is touched by Correctional Service Canada and the impact it has. It works with many of our other institutions like the community college in Springhill. It provides all kinds of information to us and the communities provide information back. It is very much a community effort. I believe in any community that has a correctional institution there must be a connection between the community and the institution to be successful.

This is why I recently proposed that the correctional training centre proposed by the solicitor general be established in the community of Springhill adjacent to the major prison there. Also it would tie in nicely with the expertise of the people. It would tie in nicely with the facilities. We have the community college in Springhill which would be more than glad to establish a curriculum that would help train correctional officers for correctional facilities all over Canada.

The Springhill institution is now the reception centre for all prisoners in Atlantic Canada. When a prisoner comes into the system the first place they go is Springhill. Springhill determines whether they should go to a maximum, medium or minimum security facility and then they are transferred from there. Every prisoner comes to Springhill, so it is an ideal spot for this correctional training centre as proposed by the solicitor general.

It will obviously save a lot of taxpayer dollars if it is established in Springhill just because the facilities are there, the training is there, the people are there and the expertise is there. I certainly endorse the solicitor general's proposal for a new training centre. I strongly recommend that it go to the Springhill community.

There is a third area where I run into justice issues even though I am not the justice critic. It is just as a member of parliament. One of the most frustrating and confusing issues that I have run into is the murder of James Mills. This murder took place on July 24, 1991.

I was involved with it as a member of parliament at that time. But the family has been dragged through a terrible ordeal for seven years, seven years of pain and frustration because there has never been justice for this murder. There has never been anyone held accountable for it. The justice department has never provided any information to satisfy the Mills family as to why its son was murdered while in a correctional facility in Renous, New Brunswick. He was in the care, custody and control of Correctional Service Canada. He was murdered and there has never been any penalty. There has never been a charged laid in this case. In this case I am certainly involved with justice issues.

James Mills was murdered in custody on July 24, 1991. This certainly indicates a breakdown in the system between Correctional Service Canada and the RCMP through the investigation and the evolution of the whole case. It has been closed several times and swept under the carpet. We have been able to drag it out several times. Time after time we have met with Correctional Service Canada people. We have met with the RCMP at all levels, senior, junior, everywhere. We have met with the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada. We have met with the minister over and over again and still we are not one step closer that we know of to a resolution to this problem.

The Mills family has never had closure. It has never been able to say somebody is being held accountable for the murder.

We have probably been through a half dozen solicitors general through this period of time since this murder and there still has not been a resolution.

The current solicitor general has certainly been the subject of a lot of attention lately because he talked about some things on an airplane he should not have talked about. The solicitor general has really been helpful in this case to try to secure a resolution to the James Mills case. To me he has gone above and beyond the call of duty because he has compassion for James Mills' family. I appreciate what he has done, although we still are not one step closer to closure.

I ask the solicitor general to continue the pressure to try to get this brought to justice and to ensure that the RCMP complete the investigation and the file is turned over the attorney general of New Brunswick. If the attorney general deems charges should be laid I hope he will lay them forthwith. If not, I hope and I demand that the Government of Canada apologize to the Mills family.

1740

The first choice is that charges be laid, justice be done and penalties be given to the appropriate people.

This brings us back to Bill C-251 which is why we are here. Bill C-251 makes imminent sense to me and, as I said, it makes imminent sense to other people who support me in my riding. It basically says that in the case of sexual offences they be treated differently than other offences.

It says that if there are other offences that occur at the same time that sexual offences occur, the sexual offence penalty be paid completely, that the sentence be served completely and not be done concurrently so that the person who commits a sexual offence cannot get off earlier because of concurrent sentences. I think it makes imminent sense and I certainly support that.

The second part of the bill says the same thing for murderers. In a case like James Mills, perhaps the person who murdered James Mills was in prison already for another murder. If he is convicted under present rules, there is no deterrent to stop that person from committing another murder, another murder, another murder.

Under this bill, if the person is brought to justice, if he does pay the penalty, if he is convicted, then it will be consecutive and not concurrent with the time he is already serving.

A prisoner in Renous murdered another prisoner. If he is convicted under the prison rules, he serves no more time. There is no deterrent. There is no reason for him not to do it. Under Bill C-251, the sentences will be consecutive and it will be a deterrent to that person from committing further crimes.

This bill emphasizes how completely out of touch with the Canadian people the present government is. The people in my riding want tougher sentences, not weaker sentences. They want criminals who commit violent crimes of a sexual nature or a homicide to stay in prison for their sentences. They do not want concurrent sentences. They want consecutive sentences and that is what this bill does. I certainly support it. My constituents support it totally, I am sure.

It seems the present policy now is for prisoners to be allowed out of prison at the earliest possible convenience to them, at the earliest possible time.

I do not disagree with that on non-violent offences if the prisoners indicate some rehabilitation, some desire to do better, some desire to improve their lives and play a role in our communities.

For violent offences I do not believe there should be exceptions. I do not believe there should be concurrent sentences. They should be consecutive sentences. I endorse this bill 100%.

The government should be focusing on just what this bill does, not things like registering shotguns and rifles. This makes no sense at all for people in my riding in northern Nova Scotia. What people want is for people who commit crimes of a violent nature to serve their time.

We want to focus on that part of justice. We do not want to focus on registration of shotguns and rifles in my riding. I want to add my support to Bill C-251 and I want to compliment the member for Mississauga East for bringing it forth.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill in support of my colleague, the member for Mississauga East. She has worked very hard for quite some time to ensure that her proposal does not fall by the wayside.

I begin by quoting from one of her speeches on a similar bill in a previous parliament: “I have sadly been visited by too many victims of crime who have now come to realize that they also are victims of parliament. Some had lost children. Some had lost parents. Some had lost spouses but all had lost faith in the courts, lost faith in the parole boards and, most of all, lost faith in parliament”. I believe that parliament can make a difference. To lose faith in parliament would, I think, be disappointing to say the least. All of us in the House believe that parliament can make a difference or else we would not be here.

My colleague has worked on her bill for two parliaments. Surely now is the time to re-establish her faith in parliament. Now is the time to look at this bill and to give it the respect and study it deserves.

1745

My riding of Oak Ridges is evolving. From being a fairly rural and small-town atmosphere where everyone knew everyone else, it has grown to be an urban centre. The problems associated with urban crime and justice are now raising their ugly head.

The chief of police in my area has informed me that the number of first and second degree murders is increasing, as is the number of sexual assaults. These are horrific crimes, domestic homicide involving husbands strangling wives, and beatings and stabbings. I will give some examples.

On September 9, 1995 there was a domestic homicide. A husband strangled his wife. He pleaded not guilty. Upon conviction of manslaughter he served five years in jail.

On December 17, 1995 in my riding there was a domestic homicide. A son-in-law beat his father-in-law to death and attempted to murder another in-law in the same manner. He pleaded not guilty. Upon conviction of second degree murder, he was sentenced to 16 years in jail.

On January 23, 1997 there was a domestic homicide. A young offender stabbed his mother to death. He pleaded guilty and upon conviction of manslaughter was sentenced to six months of secured custody and four months of open custody.

Another problem in my riding is home invasions where people are stalked then attacked in their own homes. There was even a case of two offenders who invaded a home to rob the owners and then slashed the victim who bled to death. That occurred on February 18, 1997. They pleaded guilty. Upon conviction of manslaughter, the young offender was sentenced as an adult to six and a half years in jail; the adult offender was sentenced to seven and a half years in jail.

I want to make the point that one of the bill's objectives is to reduce our inhumanity to the families of victims. Who among us does not remember the horror suffered by the victims of Clifford Olson and their families, the victims of Paul Bernardo and their families, the victims of Denis Lortie and their families.

Half of all those convicted of second degree murder in this country and who are sentenced to life are released after less than 12 years. Denis Lortie machine gunned three people to death and was released after only serving 11 years.

I cannot even imagine what those families have gone through. They deserve our compassion and they deserve truth in sentencing. There should be no discounts in sentencing.

Convicted repeat offenders of these crimes should not serve penalties all at the same time and then be released. If the person has done the crime, he or she should do the time. That means serving the full sentence for each penalty, a full sentence for each specific crime.

I have no difficulty in supporting cumulative sentencing for convicted serial rapists and serial killers. I believe in stiff sentences and I believe in serving all the time on the sentence and not serving it all at the same time. If a person is given three sentences, add them up and serve the cumulative time.

I believe this is a way to restore the public's faith in the court system, faith in sentencing, and faith in parliament. We should be proud to send the justice system a clear message. We should be clear and concise. Canadians want criminals treated in a clear way.

According to Sentencing in Canada: “Previous research suggests that, for some offences at least, unwarranted variation in sentencing trends is a reality in Canada. Researchers found for example that the same set of case facts generated sentences that ranged in severity from a suspended sentence to 13 years in prison”. This is not right. We should provide the justice system with clear and unequivocal direction.

A sentence should apply for each specific crime and for each victim. Full time should be served for each sentence.

By supporting this bill, we will establish faith in parliament for all Canadians, and certainly for my colleague for Mississauga East.

1750

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to address the contents of Bill C-251.

The bill calls for the imposition of consecutive sentences where a person commits sexual assault and another offence arising out of the same event or where the person is already serving another sentence at the time.

Also, the bill provides that a person sentenced to life imprisonment for first or second degree murder is not eligible for parole until that person has served in addition to the portion of the sentence that the person must serve for murder, one-third or a maximum of seven years of any other sentence imposed on the person in respect of an offence arising out of the same events, or a sentence that the person is already serving. The mandatory portion of each life sentence imposed on a person convicted of a second murder must be served consecutively before that person is eligible for parole.

My constituents and I cannot believe that there is anyone in the House who could disagree with the spirit and intention of the bill. In fact one of my motions in the House as a new member of parliament was along the same lines as Bill C-251. My Motion M-23 calls for the House to provide that in cases where an accused person is convicted of multiple criminal offences, that person should receive consecutive sentences. My motion was even broader than the scope of Bill C-251.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Mississauga East for bringing her bill forward. This bill would bring some measure of truth to sentencing.

We on this side of the House have been calling for truth in sentencing for many years. Without truth in sentencing we lose confidence in our criminal justice system.

Last summer we heard the justice minister admit in the House that Canadians have no confidence in our criminal justice system. That is what she said. We on this side of the House have been saying that for many years because we listen to what Canadians say to us.

Bernardo brutally killed two people. We feel that he should serve two sentences consecutively. Clifford Olson committed multiple murders. We feel that he should serve multiple consecutive sentences. Justice must be done and seen to be done. That is what we need for Canadians to have their faith in our criminal justice system restored.

What has the Liberal justice minister been doing to restore faith in our criminal justice system? Absolutely nothing. Where are the Young Offenders Act changes? It has been months since the minister last spoke about that.

Today with the passage of this bill, criminals would know that when they commit crimes they will serve the time.

We must hold criminals accountable and punish them for all the crimes they commit. That is what the bill proposes.

In Surrey, B.C. where I come from we have to help our RCMP detachment. The Liberals are allowing their funding to dry up. In my riding the RCMP is rationing the gasoline used in the police cruisers. We cannot believe this. It is like living under the War Measures Act. During times of war we ration gasoline.

Former Prime Minister Trudeau was the last Liberal to invoke the War Measures Act, but he declared it publicly. Our current Prime Minister is doing such a bad job running our country that we are living under War Measures Act rules, except the Prime Minister is not admitting it.

The solicitor general tells us that the RCMP can give us the same service today as it did 125 years ago. That is what he said in question period this week. The RCMP has not been rationing gas for 125 years. Never in 125 years has our RCMP been unable to conduct an investigation because of the lack of personnel and funding.

1755

We can help by preventing the RCMP from having to deal with repeat criminals or their customers. We can ensure that multiple crimes receive multiple consecutive sentences. We have no apology for keeping repeat criminals off the streets. We need tough sentencing. We do not need five star Liberal jails.

The Liberals should be concerned about the criminal committing further crimes. Instead the government is concentrating on aspects of how early can a person convicted of a crime be released. Again the Liberals are not getting tough on crime. This government should be ashamed.

It was this government that two weeks ago denied our law enforcement agencies the full use of DNA identification technology. Our police were pleading for the use of technology, but the Liberals said no. That is why the bogus refugees on our streets are selling drugs to our children today.

The hon. member for Mississauga East is concerned about the victims of crime. The bill she has introduced provides for consecutive sentencing. We should all support this bill. We should be looking through the lens of the issues and not through the lens of political stripes. We should support any member of the House when he or she is doing the right thing. On this side of the House we are allowed to do that and we expect the same courtesy from the government side as well.

We are supporting Bill C-251 submitted by a Liberal member of parliament because this is the right thing to do. This bill will contribute to bringing safety back to our streets. It will restore a measure of public safety. It will remove criminals from our streets for longer periods of time and it will protect innocent citizens. It will protect the most vulnerable members of our society, women, children and seniors. Yet the Liberals are not taking concrete measures to protect Canadians, make our homes and streets safe and reduce crime through deterrence measures.

The people of Surrey Central want our federal government to exercise a leadership role in terms of getting tough on crime, so we will support this bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-251, introduced by our colleague from Mississauga East, is the result of a lot of hard work on her part to prove the need to amend the Criminal Code.

She proved, through statistics and studies, that people feel let down by parliament's unwillingness to rectify this rather serious flaw. Our colleague had three goals in moving this bill, the first one being to introduce a human element.

Through he work, she had the opportunity to meet the families of victims of the most abominable crimes you can imagine. They talked about the moral anguish suffered by family members and friends alike. This shows the law is flawed. Some of these crimes are so horrible that they have had a tremendous impact on the victims' families. Of course, the victims are dead now, but their families are still suffering.

I believe this human point of view is extremely important and not negligible. Often these people feel that the members of their families who were victims of such horrendous crimes have been forgotten. When a sentence is handed down, it is a concurrent sentence. This means that if a criminal is sentenced to life in prison, it does not go any further; of course we know that legally they can ask for parole. After 15 years, they have the opportunity to recover their freedom.

1800

Of course, this is horrible for the victims' families.

Statistics, and our colleague's study, show that in seven out of ten cases the victims fell prey to criminals who had already served prison terms for such horrible crimes as murder, and had reoffended upon being released after 15 years. Very often the victims were children or women.

When we hear such figures, seven out of ten victims due to the fact that these criminals reoffended, we have every right to be concerned and say that the law should be amended. We cannot afford to let people loose when we know that they are very likely to commit the same kind of crimes.

I believe the least we can do is amend the law so that in the case of such horrible crimes and when there are several victims, we do not take any chances and do not release them. These crimes are often beyond our imagination.

The member for Mississauga East is right to believe that the time has come for parliament and members of this House to take a stand on this issue. We have nothing to lose, but everything to gain, in making sure that in the future the kind of crimes we have seen in recent years do not happen again. There are people who were released who should never have been set free.

There is not much more to be said on this issue. Our colleague did her homework. Many people have voiced their opinion on this matter. It is obvious that an amendment was needed and at long last we will have the opportunity to rectify this serious flaw.

[English]

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in this House to support private member's Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This bill was brought forward with great determination by the member for Mississauga East.

This bill would bring justice to sentencing practices in Canada and would end volume discounts for rapists and murderers. By enacting consecutive sentencing for serial murderers and rapists this bill will give victims and families faith in parliament and the ability to sleep peacefully at night.

The Canadian public understands that the objectives of this bill are to reduce our inhumanity to the families of victims, to restore some truth in sentencing and to stop gambling away lives on the chance that a multiple murderer or serial predator will not attack again.

Disparity in sentencing in this country provides a strong argument for change. Consider this: half of those convicted of second degree murder who are sentenced to life are released after less than 12 years. Denis Lortie, who gunned down three people in the Quebec National Assembly, was released after only 11 years. That is about 3.5 years for each person he murdered.

1805

Life imprisonment in Canada does not mean life. Canadians are misled to believe that once a murderer goes to jail he stays there. That is not always the case and it never was.

Researchers say that the same set of case facts, for some offences at least, generated sentences that ranged from a suspended sentence to 13 years in prison. There is no consistency from one end of the country to the other. This is very disturbing.

A shocking discovery is found in a study entitled “Sentencing in Canada: Recent Statistical Trends” written by two well-respected experts in this field, Julian Roberts of the University of Ottawa and Andy Birkenmayer of Statistics Canada. The report states:

One of the most basic failings of the current sentencing system in Canada is that there is no method for anyone—to know in a systematic, up-to-date, and accessible manner, on a continuing basis, what kinds of sentences are being handed down.

With no consistency and no proper, well-known precedence on sentencing, how can Canadians have confidence in their legal system? Change begins with this bill.

The tragic irony is that we have no problem invoking consecutive penalties for offences like parking tickets or speeding tickets.

As the member for Mississauga East has explained many times, if someone parks illegally 10 times they pay 10 tickets. There is no volume discount. If someone gets three speeding tickets they are going to pay three fines.

This bill seeks the same principle for serious and vicious crimes. One only has to look at the Clifford Olson case to be compelled to vote for Bill C-251. At Olson's disgusting 745 hearing last summer he read out a letter from his lawyer advising him to admit to all of his murders at once. In this way Olson could take full advantage of the concurrent sentencing law.

We should not accept the fact that Olson and other predators can be given concurrent sentences and that our justice system continues to offer bulk rates for brutality.

It has been argued in this House that concurrent sentences counter any need to reduce sentencing dispositions for individual offences in order to achieve an overall and just result. It is never just to reduce a sentence for rape or murder just because the victim was not the only victim of the predator involved.

It is worse yet for the courts to mask the fact that they do discount sentences time and time again through concurrent sentencing. The courts should impose consecutive sentences when the crimes are as devastating as murder and sexual assault.

Is it not more logical and compassionate to keep those predators who have killed or sexually assaulted multiple victims securely away from future victims? If we need more space in prisons, then creative forms of punishment and rehabilitation should be introduced for those guilty of property or commercial offences.

Here is a compelling point. It is often said that the National Parole Board is an independent decision maker dedicated to public safety. However, in the real world an average paroled criminal murders one person a month. How can members of this House live with that statistic? How can we not care about victims who have every reason to fear the release of a predator and who can never escape the endless parole process that threatens to unleash the savagery of their assailants?

1810

Consecutive sentences would help the parole board to distinguish the higher risk associated with rapists and murderers convicted of multiple offences from individuals who may be guilty of a single crime from a single incident.

Currently the lives of individual victims have been erased from the sentencing equation. It shows a justice system that cheapens life, where the courts have little regard for the pain, suffering and death of the second, third or eleventh victim. I find this unacceptable. Constituents in my riding find this unacceptable. Members on both sides of this House find it unacceptable as well.

I would like to believe that we live in a country where government would do everything in its power to protect the victims of predators like Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo and Denis Lortie. Bill C-251 will do just that. The voice of Canadians who want to see important changes to the Criminal Code is growing and growing. We can all relate to the public's need to feel safe. However, it is time to do more than just relate. It is time to enact change to protect the peace of mind of every Canadian in this country.

I thank the member for Mississauga East for bringing these reasonable and required changes to light and for the strength and hard work she has shown in pushing this issue in the House. Our justice system demands urgent changes. I fully support Bill C-251 and I strongly encourage all members of the House to do the same.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-251. I give my encouragement, thanks and admiration to the member for Mississauga East who has worked so hard to bring this bill to the forefront. If we could clap today I am sure we would because she has truly done a tremendous job on something that is going to bring enormous justice to the Canadian people. It will improve our justice system and make our streets safer.

The member is addressing an issue that goes to the worst, most predatorial of all individuals, the violent offender, the murderer, the rapist. The member is introducing a bill that allows for consecutive sentencing, not concurrent sentencing, for individuals who have proven to be a danger to society, who have proven to have violated the fundamental rights of another individual by committing the most atrocious violations through murder or rape.

The Canadian public does not find it acceptable that somebody who commits multiple rapes or murders can only receive one sentence or sentences which run concurrently. It is absolutely unbelievable that only 13% of child molesters, who are often multiple repeat offenders, and 30% of individuals who commit sexual assaults receive a sentence of two years or more. Bear in mind that individuals who receive any sentence can receive parole after serving only one-sixth of their sentence. They can be out on the street after serving only a few months for committing a violation against an individual. The innocent individual will have to live with the violation for the rest of their life. Bill C-251 addresses the root of this problem and provides a constructive outlet for keeping the streets of our country safe.

I would caution the government to make sure that this bill does not languish in committee. All too often private members' bills go to committee and the government blocks them. It prevents those bills from ever reaching third reading and becoming law.

1815

It would be an absolute travesty if this were to happen to Bill C-251. It would be an enormous problem and would do a huge injustice to the hard work by one member of parliament, the member for Mississauga East. She has done so much work for 166 members in the House to arrive at this level of support for the bill. For 166 members to support the bill and for the bill to go to the committee to sit there and languish would be a huge problem. We will be watching the government and government leaders on the other side very carefully to make sure this never happens.

This issue also illustrates a larger problem with respect to Private Members' Business. I know that the House leader, the government whip and all other members opposite who have the power to change it are very interested in constructive solutions to making sure that Private Members' Business is a more lively part of the House.

Private Members' Business is one of the few opportunities for members of parliament to exercise ideas in the House. If the government continues to prevent it from being a useful tool it would violate the very basics of democracy. It would violate the ability of MPs to represent their constituents. It would violate the ability of the Canadian public to be represented in the House.

The government House leader was very vocal and provided many constructive suggestions when he was in opposition. He published a wonderful document along with Mr. Dingwall and a number of other people in 1992 which provided incredibly constructive suggestions on how to improve Private Members' Business.

I know the government House Leader is listening intently to me. I would encourage him to take the words he penned with his own hand in the wonderful document to reform Private Members' Business and make the House more democratic and more responsive to the needs of the backbenchers and the public. I encourage him to pull out that wonderful document, come to the House within the next two months and institute it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.

1835

And the bells having rung:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on the second reading and reference of Bill C-251.

As it is the practice, the division will be taken row by row starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover. Then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of the House will be called. Those opposed to the motion will be called in the same order.

1840

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 245

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

PAIRED

Members

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

---

ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS

[English]

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to question the government's ability and ingenuity on the post-TAGS adjustment program, the one that was recently announced.

This may sound different but I have to give credit to the government for at least having some form of initiative in a post-TAGS adjustment program when all the indications out there were that it would not do anything at all.

The unfortunate part is that the new program falls extremely short of assisting those people who have been seriously affected by the downturn of the fishery as well as DFO government policies. There is no question at all that when the new TAGS adjustment program was announced, thousands and thousands of the fishermen and plant workers on the east coast of Atlantic Canada and in Quebec were shut out of the new system.

Basically what they have done is apply one set of fishing groups against another. During committee consideration in early May and June I begged the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to announce the program while the House was in session so that we could debate the issue here and not through the media.

He had said at that time that he would take it under consideration but could not offer any guarantees. Unfortunately that wish went by the boards, and they announced the program in Newfoundland which unfortunately turned into a bit of a shouting match between displaced fishers and representatives of the government who were there to announce the program.

1845

The real essence of this entire equation is that fishermen and plant workers do not want the damn TAGS. They do not want it. They just want to work.

A classic example is that today I announced in a statement in the House that the town of Canso which was a viable fishing community with over 400 years of self-sufficiency will now announce at the beginning of January that it will have to claim civic bankruptcy because of the direct policies of DFO.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of fishermen and plant workers throughout the Atlantic coast and Quebec were shut out of any adjustment program. Another aspect to the adjustment program is the licence buyback. It falls extremely far short and is absolutely criminal of what the government has done to these people who invested their entire lives in historical attachment to the fishery to get crumbs from this federal government.

In conclusion we do not have an agreement with the United States on Pacific salmon because the minister himself said “the United States is a very powerful nation and we have to tread carefully in negotiations with them”.

I have on my desk the fact that the very mighty and powerful nation of the Faroe Islands has convinced Canada that we have to open up the Flemish Cap which is just outside the 200 mile limit. We have to give it additional access to shrimp. This shrimp allocation should have gone to those Canadians in Canso and in Mulgrave. Unfortunately now hundreds of people will be losing their jobs because we capitulated to that great powerful nation, the Faroe Islands.

It is absolutely scandalous that thousands of Canadians in this country can be so seriously let down by this government.

Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic groundfish strategy or TAGS was designed to ensure that individuals who had lost their livelihood and source of income could meet their basic human needs. On this score TAGS has been successful. Over 40,000 clients were provided with income support in a timely manner. The program has also been successful in helping some 15,000 fisher workers adjust out of the industry.

We realize that it will be a long time, if ever, before these fish stocks are returned. We realize that what fishers and their communities need are tools and programs to assist them to build new lives outside the fishery. Therefore on June 19, 1998 we announced an additional $730 million for a program called the fishery restructuring and adjustment measures. These measures include a final cash payment, licence retirement, early retirement benefits, mobility assistance, employment programming and wage subsidies.

To date we have approved in addition 145 term job creation projects in Newfoundland which will put 1,645 Canadians back to work. In Nova Scotia we have already approved six projects putting 78 Canadians back to work.

In closing I wish to assure the hon. member that the Government of Canada is not abandoning its responsibility for the people on the east coast. On the contrary this government is providing millions of dollars in funding to the east coast and Quebec to help these Canadians and communities adjust to the changing economy.

It is for this reason that the government remains committed to ensuring that all Canadians, including fishers and plant workers, can plan for their future.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)