House of Commons Hansard #195 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-55.

Topics

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil, QC

Madam Speaker, I would remind the members opposite that I have been talking about Bill C-55 for a while. I am providing facts to permit an understanding of the government's attitude.

On July 3, 1998, Michel C. Auger of the Journal de Montréal , not known as a sovereignist, commented in these terms on Ottawa's attitude to Quebec in the meeting organized last summer by the federal government, and I quote:

There was nothing to prevent Quebec from having the status at this conference of participating government similar to the arrangement at the francophone community summits.

In fact, Canada's position would be strengthened by the presence of Quebec, if only to show pointedly that Canada is not afraid of cultural diversity internally or externally.

However, as usual in Ottawa, they are incapable of seeing beyond the end of the flag. By appearing just slightly more open, the Minister of Canadian Heritage would have struck a vigorous blow for federalism. Because, if there is one thing at the heart of the sovereignist project, it is the right to cultural diversity.

So when globalization questions a number of the classic arguments in favour of sovereignty, there is one argument that takes on added importance and that is the right to defend one's culture and one's right to difference internationally.

I would, in this same vein, like to quote Bernard Descôteaux, the new head of the Devoir , who said this morning, and I quote:

But the presence of Quebec at meetings where cultural diversity is addressed should be a given. This is an issue that has Quebec truly concerned and rightly so. It has some viewpoints to offer and an experience to share in what is constitutionally a provincial area of jurisdiction.

This speaks volumes. Quebec and Canada have reached agreements on crucial issues like immigration, manpower, housing, and, just yesterday, the justice minister recognized Quebec's uniqueness in the way it deals with young offenders. Why is the federal government so intent in ignoring Quebec's culture?

Yet, Quebec's demands in the areas of culture and communications date further back that its demands about manpower and were made by every Quebec government.

In 1996, Daniel Johnson stated that Quebec should make its own decisions regarding culture. This statement was reiterated by Jean-Jacques Bertrand three years later. In 1971, Robert Bourassa asked for a reallocation of powers in the area of culture. In 1991, the Allaire Report released by the Quebec Liberal Party recommended that culture, communications and language should be exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Once again, I remind my colleagues opposite that I am only quoting from federalists.

In 1991, the Bélanger-Campeau report asked that Quebec be given, and I quote:

—exclusive jurisdiction and responsibility over its social, economic and cultural development and in the area of language.

By refusing to recognize Quebec's culture, by passing it off as a mere regional culture within the Canada mosaic, by light-heartedly mixing the cultural policy with propaganda, the heritage minister and the federal government are giving sovereignists a winning condition.

By stating that only independent nations have the right to attend international events like the one that was held in France, the Prime Minister is providing sovereignists with another winning condition.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The matter of relevance has been raised once already. I am listening to a volley of separatist mythical propaganda as opposed to items relevant to the debate.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I am listening carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Longueuil. I am sure she is about to make a link with Bill C-55.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Bloc

Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil, QC

Madam Speaker, you will see the link very soon. I am getting there.

The federal government wants to become a leader in the promotion of cultural diversity in the world. In order to establish its own credibility, as Mrs. Bissonnette pointed out, it must officially recognize the Quebec culture and give it the necessary means to thrive all over the world. The fact is that the Quebec culture already manages to do that, in spite of all the trip ups of the federal government.

Again, I stress the importance of continuing the fight at the international level to promote cultural diversity. The work has not even begun yet. The next round of international negotiations is to start in November.

Yet, neither in the budget nor in the government's statements did I hear about the urgent need to act or did I see the budgeting of any major initiative to promote cultural diversity and to make sure that the respect of such diversity will become a precondition in the millennium negotiations that will begin in November.

I will conclude with a statement made in Paris by Agnès Maltais, the Quebec Minister of Culture and Communications, on March 10:

In a recent book, a French philosopher wrote that, in the context of globalization, it is in the interest of every country to listen to the nations that have always had to live with the profound and disturbing feeling of their own precariousness. Indeed, there is now a risk of overall levelling throughout the world.

Therefore, all peoples will ultimately feel what francophones in America have been feeling for so long. This is what led Alain Finkielkraut to use this eloquent line: We are all Quebeckers.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today again to address Bill C-55 at third reading.

Unlike the government, the New Democratic Party commitment to preserving our culture in the face of American aggression is solid. We support this bill. We support Canadian culture.

We are not happy with the reported government attempts, including its last minute amendment, to delay the proclamation of this bill. We are suspicious that the government will negotiate our culture away behind closed doors, much as the Mulroney Conservatives did in the free trade agreement.

We want stronger cultural protection under NAFTA, under the FTA, under the WTO and under every trade agreement that Canada is party to. These are not my thoughts alone.

I think it is important for us to understand the feelings of Canadians around this bill and about their opinions relating to the protection of cultural from Canadian foreign trade deals.

In the last week of February the standing committee on heritage toured Canada to seek input from interested Canadians on cultural policy and on such issues as Bill C-55. I think it is fitting for me to include some of these comments in this presentation. Anne Manuel from St. John's on February 22 said:

I'm not sure if everyone is familiar with this [bill]. Basically what it is to do, if everything works as planned, is prevent split-run magazines. Currently there are magazines like Sports Illustrated coming out of the United States that have set sizes for their advertising so that when they send the magazine into Canada, all they do is approach an advertiser and say, hey, we've got a half-page ad here, let's slip that Canadian ad right in there. They've already paid for the material to the freelance writer. They've already paid the managing editors and the editors to make sure the article looks perfect, and the photographer to make sure the photo looks perfect. They've already done all of that, so all the bills are paid.

Then they approach Canadian advertisers and they say, well, let's slip that Canadian ad in there and make Canadians think that this is a Canadian magazine”. That's cheating, and that's not helping culture in Canada. That's the sort of thing that really does need federal support desperately. We need the federal government to jump in and say that the foreign publishers advertising services act is a good thing. That's where I really support it.

Mr. Andrew Terris of Halifax is the chair of the Nova Scotia Cultural Network. I think he said it best of many of the presenters who expressed concern over the enormous foreign control of our cultural industries:

Here's what we don't control: 70% of the music on Canadian radio stations is foreign; 60% of all English language television programming is foreign; 70% of the Canadian book market is imported. We don't control 83% of the news stand market for magazines; 84% of the retail sales of sound recordings; 95% of feature films screened in Canadian theatres; 86% of prime time English language drama on Canadian television; and 75% of prime time drama on French language television.

His final comment was that we are an occupied country.

We all know that the Americans would never accept these kinds of numbers in their market. It is imperative that the government of this country take a very strong stand on these issues. These have implications in terms of funding for culture, technology, issues of trade liberalization, globalization, demographics and the role of the federal government. This is the central issue in terms of cultural policy in this country.

In Halifax we heard from Mr. James Lorimer of the Formac Publishing Company. He made some important observations regarding book and magazine publishing. He noted that Canadians are constantly being pushed to the edge by American products.

In book publishing there has been this slow, sort of stealthy retreat from a tough policy that was actually put in place by the Conservative government when Marcel Masse was the minister of communications. By far the biggest book publishing company in Canada is owned by Bertelsmann. The federal government has just allowed this to go ahead in the face of a policy that is supposed to prevent indirect takeovers, to stand in the way of indirect takeovers.

Mr. Lorimer continues to say that on the magazine side, we can see what the Americans are doing with respect to Bill C-55. They are again trying to keep that space open for themselves. They are trying to hold back Canadian publishing in the magazine industry.

Witness after witness spoke to us in profound and moving ways on the importance of having direct government action to protect culture and heritage in the changing world of global deal making.

In Montreal Mr. Peter Sandmark from the Independent Cinema and Video Alliance said:

I had one comment because I haven't heard mentioned the multilateral agreement on investment. Now if that were signed, these co-production treaties that require foreign crews to hire Canadian technicians and so on would be illegal if I understand correctly the interpretation of it, and therefore foreign productions could come in here and would not have to hire any Canadians and could take advantage of tax credits because they would have to be treated like nationals, same thing.

At the same meeting Mr. Robert Pilon, vice-president for public affairs for the Quebec Alliance for the Record, Performance and Video Industries, said:

If Canada gives in on this [magazine issue] today, we will all suffer. If the Americans get a victory on this issue tomorrow they will be attacking our support for the film sector, and the day after that they will be challenging us on books and our Canadian content on the radio.

These are individuals, business people, artists and all are concerned Canadians. Their message to me was not to negotiate behind closed doors. They want the federal government to protect and promote Canadian culture and heritage.

Mr. Pilon had it right, magazines are the line in the sand. We let it slip and we will all do it at our own peril.

Bill C-55 is a glimmer of hope, just a glimmer, that the Liberals will for once follow their words with some actions.

If they are serious about protecting culture they should proclaim this bill. If they want to protect our Canadian industries they should go to the WTO table and do it there. They should go back to our NAFTA partners and get the retaliation sections of the cultural carve-out removed. They should work with the other countries in favour of cultural exemptions, like the Europeans, and take on the world.

Our artists are good at taking on the world. I hope our government will follow the example.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-55, the foreign publishers advertising services act. It is important for Canada that we protect our publishing industry especially in light of the things that are happening in the industry now with global communications and especially the Internet. Pressure will be enormous on all countries to protect their cultures especially from the United States which is the leader in the Internet revolution.

We agree that the Canadian magazine industry needs to be enhanced and encouraged. On the other hand, we are a trading nation. If we restrict other countries from trading in Canada under the terms of our trade agreements then we must expect the retaliation which is now threatened.

There is a fundamental difference in the way the Americans look at this situation and the way we in Canada look at it. In the U.S. this is just a business deal. It is just part of doing business. In Canada it is a cultural issue. Unfortunately our trade agreements are trade, not cultural. There is a great debate now in Canada on whether the Americans can retaliate against many of our industries. I am not at all convinced that they cannot retaliate against us under the terms and conditions of our trade agreements which we did sign and should comply with. My support for this bill will depend on the assurance of the minister that our industries will be protected. So far I am not at all convinced of that situation.

In my riding we have steel plants, plastics plants, forestry industries and textile factories, all targeted industries. A trade war is not appealing to me or the people of my riding which is an area of high unemployment where it is tough to generate new jobs and create employment. Even though the government has assured us there are protections under the terms and conditions of the agreements, the delays in action by the government send a completely different signal to me and certainly shakes my confidence.

I agree that we should have a negotiated settlement prior to the implementation of this bill so we can avoid any of these trade wars that have been discussed. Canada has responded to other complaints from the Americans and we have had to adjust our trade tariff codes, our postal rates, et cetera.

There is no argument about Canadian culture that it must be protected, but if we sign trade agreements we must comply with those terms. In this case interpretations differ depending on who we listen to. While we must stand up for Canadian culture we must again face the terms and conditions of our agreements. To Americans this is a business deal, to Canadians it is a cultural sovereignty issue.

The minister stood here today and called the Americans bullies. I take exception to that. I do not think they are bullies. I think they are using the tools entrenched in the agreement that we agreed to at the time we signed it. agreement.

In October 1997 the World Trade Organization said Canada was wrong. It told us to change our excise tax and tariffs. Canada was given until October 1998 to get our policy in line with the general agreement on services or face retaliation. We are not always right and in this case we were wrong.

In 1995 the government introduced the original Bill C-103 which did not pass the test. Now we are trying it again with Bill C-55 and there is controversy over whether it will be subjected to the same retaliation and action by the U.S. The U.S. ambassador has threatened a billion dollars in trade retaliation in textiles, steel, plastics and wood.

The assurances by the minister are not very convincing. While she says Canada is safe in this issue, she has already announced a delay in the implementation of the bill in her statements and her officials are marching off to Washington to renegotiate this deal in advance. That makes me very nervous.

The Prime Minister was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen as saying: “We think we can justify it in front of the World Trade Organization”. That does not instil much confidence in me. When he says “we think we can justify it” I think maybe our jobs in steel, textiles, forestry and plastics are safe. It hits home in Cumberland—Colchester because all those industries are represented in my riding and are major employers.

Cherubini Steel is a brand new company but is projected to deliver 90% of its products to the United States. Will it ever get started if this happens? Stanfield's clothing, a brand name known all over the world, has been in business for 100 years.

Many mills have a tradition of shipping their wood products to the United States. Poly Cello Plastics, Ropak Can-Am and Canadian Polymer, all industries in the plastics business, would ship many of their products to the United States. Does the Prime Minister's statement “we think we can justify it” give them confidence? I do not think so. I would not want my job depending on the statement “we think we can justify it”. It is just not good enough.

The Conservatives have been consistent in support of the Canadian magazine industry. We even supported it at second reading of this bill. But my vote will depend on the confidence in the minister, the resulting actions in the next few days and the results of those negotiations in the U.S.

There is another thing that does not instil a whole lot of confidence in me. An article in today's National Post which says that top bureaucrats were dispatched to D.C. to avert a trade war. We have not even passed the bill and we are trying to avert a trade war.

Another statement by the minister of international trade is “We are willing to entertain various options that both protect our mission statement but also address the American concerns. I think we should be doing this”. This does not instil confidence in me. It certainly does not instil confidence in industries in the targeted areas or their employees.

We are not playing games here. This is a billion dollars worth of business. By saying we think we can justify it in front of the World Trade Organization is just not enough.

Again, my support for this bill will ultimately depend on the confidence and the assurances of the minister and the Prime Minister. So far, neither of them has given me the confidence to vote yes on this bill. I am not saying that I will vote no, but so far there has been nothing to convince me to vote yes.

I resent the attitude of the government. The insinuation is that anybody who questions or opposes this is not a supporter of the Canadian magazine industry or is not a supporter of Canadian culture. That is not true. We are talking about a bill. We are not talking about an industry. If we vote against the bill, we are not voting against an industry. We are not voting against Canadian culture. We are voting against a bill which we think was drafted improperly and will result in retaliation.

It is obvious that the government is apprehensive about its position on this just by its actions and concerns. Based on previous rulings against Canada in the World Trade Organization, comments by the Prime Minister that we think we can justify it are not enough.

Regarding any actions by the minister of heritage, again Madam Speaker, I ask you, would you want your job depending on someone saying “we think we can justify it”?

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON

Madam Speaker, I listened with a lot of interest to the member across the way. He said that he wanted to hear something that would convince him, that he is not sure.

Two weeks ago, the standing committee on agriculture went to Washington. We met with Congress and the Senate. We discussed with them what we perceive Canada's position is going to be with the WTO.

The member opposite says that he wants to be convinced. I want him to think this way. Right now with the Americans running advertisements through split-run magazines, what they are doing is testing the waters before we go to these trade negotiations. What we are doing right now with Bill C-55 is showing the Americans that Canada is not a pushover. That would be a good reason.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Madam Speaker, that is a reason.

The things that make me nervous on the other hand are that the Prime Minister did not come out and say, “We can defend this in front of the World Trade Organization. We are right on this. We can stand firm”. He said, “We think we can justify it in front of the WTO”. That does not instil confidence in me.

It does not instil confidence in me that today two top bureaucrats were dispatched to Washington to avert a trade war. Two deputy ministers, an almost unheard of precedent, are there now trying to divert an action by the U.S. that has not even been started yet.

I do not know whether this has ever happened before. It certainly does not do a thing to instil confidence in me. In my riding of Cumberland—Colchester, we cannot afford to play games with jobs in the steel industry, the forestry industry, the plastics industry and the textiles industry. We cannot afford to be testing it and saying we think we can justify it. It just is not good enough.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Liberal Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON

Madam Speaker, following on the vein of that question and the answer from the member for Cumberland—Colchester, has he given serious thought to the way in which the WTO is presently working? Has he seen the way in which the Americans are operating with respect to the banana case and the way in which they are treating the Europeans in picking off one industry after another as a way of advancing their trade interests in a way that does not make the international trade system work very well?

Does he not think that in these circumstances we as Canadians have to stand up and say this is an important cultural issue for us, this is an important dimension of what we are trying to do and tell our American friends, “You would not put up with dumping things in your jurisdiction”. This is a form of dumping magazines into Canada. We are saying to them, “What we are asking for here, putting it in trade terms, is nothing more than a decent level playing field. You talk that way all the time. You ask for a level playing field. Give us a level playing field”. That is what we are saying, yet they do not seem to want to do it in these trade negotiations. They always want to have the upper hand.

I remember that George Will, one of those big correspondents in the United States, said that free trade is something that ranks somewhere between Christianity and jogging, as something much talked about and very little practised. That is the way the Americans approach this. They do not believe in free trade when it is coming into their markets; they believe in free trade when it is coming into our markets or other markets.

This is a very important issue for Canada. I know the member understands that. I would urge him to consider that we should not be put off by the Americans in this respect. I think we will have allies in Europe now because of the banana war. We will have other allies who recognize that this type of hardball tactic that is presently being resorted to will not make the WTO work and in fact will help destroy it.

Would the hon. member give some consideration to that?

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Madam Speaker, the Americans are using the tools entrenched in the agreements that we all agreed to. If we are wrong, we are wrong and we have been proven wrong before. I am not saying we are wrong, but I question that we are right.

I was encouraged this morning by the Minister of Canadian Heritage who spoke on this issue. She acknowledged that this was a cultural issue involved with a business agreement. If I remember correctly she said that they were trying to organize a group of countries to start dealing with cultural issues and establish cultural agreements.

That is the problem here. We have a cultural issue in a business agreement, in a business arrangement. We do not have a cultural agreement. If we want a cultural agreement, we should negotiate one. The minister acknowledged and admitted this morning that we have not done that and we do not have one.

With that in mind, we should remember that this is a business agreement and we all have to live up to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Madam Speaker, following up on that, I noticed that during his intervention the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale was trying to turn things around by suggesting that the Americans in retaliating in the so-called banana war against the Europeans are somehow putting the WTO at risk. I suggest what is putting the WTO at great risk is countries which do not adhere to rulings of the WTO, countries that go completely contrary to the thrust of a ruling.

We as the sovereign nation of Canada enter into trade agreements and a dispute arises. Then the dispute is taken to the WTO for a ruling, as it was in this particular case. The WTO ruled on it and now we try to do an end run around the ruling.

That is what is happening with the case of bananas in Europe and with the magazine issue here which is before the House again in Bill C-55. I suggest that what is really putting the World Trade Organization at risk is countries that do not adhere to the rulings.

Would the hon. member comment further on that?

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I would say that if we go into agreements which give us benefits, and certainly these agreements have given us great benefits, we sign the agreements. We agree to adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreements. We cannot be sore losers if it is proven that we have contravened the agreements. This happened in the previous ruling on this very issue.

I am not questioning the importance of the magazine industry in Canada or the importance of the cultural issue aspect of this, but we have signed an agreement. We have agreed to the terms and conditions. We would hold them to the terms and conditions of an agreement and we do it every day in tribunals.

What really concerns me is the obvious apprehension on the government side that it has developed a bill that is going to cause a lot of retaliation. We can see it in the government's words and actions. When the government said it was going to delay the implementation of the bill, when it said it was sending deputy ministers to the U.S. to avert a trade war, this screamed to me that we have a problem. Jobs in Cumberland—Colchester are at risk. The government had better make sure that it is right and that we are complying with the terms and conditions and that retaliation will not happen.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for Cumberland—Colchester. He made a number of comments with respect to confidence and levels of confidence.

I heard the minister this morning speak very eloquently in terms of her position and the government's position with respect to this bill. From my perspective and I think the perspective of many members in this House, it underscored the fact that there is a high degree of confidence and we can proceed in this manner in a way that is meaningful and fitting for all Canadians. That is important to note.

Does the hon. member agree that there are times when we need, from a cultural perspective, to ensure that our cultural interests are defended and ensured? Does the member also agree that in this case the Americans, with bullying tactics, are trying to undermine that cultural perspective?

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Madam Speaker, I would hope that the government of my country would use the tools entrenched in the agreement to seek the best possible terms under any agreement we signed. I take exception to the word bullying, or the attitude of bullying. I do not agree that the Americans are bullying. I think they are using the terms and conditions and if they cannot use them, they will be proven wrong.

Our minister and our Prime Minister are not showing confidence in their own positions. Again I refer to the story this morning about two top bureaucrats being dispatched to Washington to avert a trade war over a bill we have not yet voted on. The minister is already acknowledging and admitting we are in trouble on this issue. She has also previously announced that she will delay the implementation of the bill even if it is passed. Why would the government be doing this? Why would the minister be delaying and running scared if we were not in jeopardy?

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Liberal Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON

Madam Speaker, I see there are only another two minutes or so to speak on this matter. I am sorry I do not have the opportunity to speak for a longer period of time.

Let me pick up on the thread of what is being discussed about the trade war aspect of this bill. We have to bear in mind that these are very serious issues being raised in respect of trade matters. This government has a very proactive policy in respect of the trade aspects of it.

Members will recall that last year the minister herself called a meeting of culture ministers from around the world. They met here precisely to discuss this issue, diversity in international trade and how we can keep our cultural diversity in an interdependent world. I think the member will agree with me that this is extremely important as we go into this increasingly integrated world. That is why we have done that.

That is why we are trying to collaborate with other like-minded states in this area. That is why the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade will be having hearings across the country to determine what the interests of Canadians are as we go into these negotiations. The hon. member could sit in on some of the committee discussions to hear from our cultural communities who are telling us we need a stronger stance in international trade.

We recognize that the rules are not what we would like them to be. We have to go into these WTO negotiations recognizing this.

I have met with members of the cultural communities in my riding and across the country. They are saying that the Government of Canada is doing the right thing with Bill C-55. We recognize it is necessary to protect our magazines if we are going to have informed political discussion in this country.

When somebody asks me why I am in favour of Bill C-55 I say I am in favour for the same reason that I am in favour of gun control and of a health care system.

If it were nothing but American magazines being read in this country we would not have either of those measures to protect Canadian citizens because we would not be able to discuss them in the intelligent, in-depth way in which we should have the opportunity. That is why we are in favour of this bill.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Pursuant to order made Monday, March 8, 1999, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

All those in favour will please say yea.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, March 15, 1999 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the House would be ready to call it 1.30 p.m. so we could commence private members' hour immediately and members could probably go home 15 minutes early.