Sarmite Bulte

[Poland, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 12 the Polish foreign minister will deliver the ratification of Poland's accession to NATO to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in Washington. This event marks one of the first steps in a truly historic process.

Our government was the first among allied nations to recognize the importance of the Polish people's desire to gain NATO membership. The government has heard the call of the Polish-Canadian community and has fully endorsed the principles behind NATO enlargement.

This demonstration of support can only increase stability in the region and strengthen the emerging democracies.

Poland's accession into NATO symbolizes the progress it has made in past years in transforming its society.

This accession also proves that Poland has now reclaimed its rightful place in the western world.

I would also take this opportunity to salute Dr. Andrzej Garlicki, the former president of the Canadian-Polish Congress, Mr. Lucien Konrad, the current president, as well as countless others who, for over half a century, have worked to attain a goal that will come to fruition within a matter of days.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-55. I would encourage all of my colleagues in the House of Commons to support this bill unanimously.

Bill C-55 sustains an important cultural objective that has been in place for three decades: to ensure the availability of information, stories and images in the magazine sector that reflect and inform Canadian society. Bill C-55 delivers on this objective by preventing unfair competition in our advertising services market which, if left unchecked, would put the Canadian publishers that provide Canadian stories to Canadian readers out of business.

If U.S. publishers could enter our advertising market, which they have not had access to for over three decades, they would dump advertising services. This is because they would have virtually no costs in that market, would achieve profit margins of up to 80% and would therefore heavily discount advertising rates in order to capture market share.

Canadian manufacturers of goods, including those in sectors that have been identified as potential targets of U.S. retaliation, have remedies available to them to prevent dumping. Canadian steel producers for example regularly exercise their rights under trade agreements by bringing anti-dumping cases. Magazine publishers do not have that option because so far there are no dumping rules for services. But Canada does have rights under our trade agreements to take measures in support of cultural industries and to regulate access to our advertising market in the magazine sector, the only available means to prevent unfair competition.

In February at a luncheon of the Broadcast Executive Society, Michael McCabe, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, called for support of the foreign publishers advertising services act. Mr. McCabe's comments about the current U.S. assault of this bill merits repeating. Mr. McCabe stated as follows:

The current American assault on the Minister of Canadian Heritage's efforts to sustain a Canadian magazine industry is just the leading edge of a broader assault to come. That's why it's so important.

We have to be able to maintain in this country a set of cultural policies that ensure that we can tell our own stories to our own people, and to others. The American proposition that it's just business and there should be a level playing field is a myth—and a dangerous myth—given their size and market power. We, and other small countries, have to insist on the freedom to make the policies we need, to support our own cultural existence.

Magazines are just the beginning. We can't fail at this. If we do, it will damage not only our businesses, but our country.

The U.S. claims that Bill C-55 is protectionist and precludes its cultural products from entering Canadian markets. That is not the case at all. In fact, foreign competition dominates the Canadian cultural market. According to the report of the Cultural Industries Sectoral Advisory Group on International Trade which was released on February 17, 1999, foreign firms and products account for the following: 45% of book sales in Canada; 81% of English language consumer magazines on Canadian newsstands and over 63% of magazine circulation revenue; 79%, or over $910 million, of the retail sales of tapes, CDs, concerts, merchandise and sheet music; 85%, or $165 million, of the revenues from film distribution in Canada; and between 94% and 97% of screen time in Canadian theatres.

While Canada believes its citizens should have access to foreign cultural goods, the government also recognizes that we need space for our own voice. Our culture is an integral part of who we are. Sharing stories and ideas and creating a better understanding among people in Canada is an effective way to build a healthy multicultural society. The government as steward of our national identity has a duty to promote cultural activities that help build a sense of community.

Cultural products are not simply commodities that can be packaged and sold. Cultural goods and services are different from the goods and services of other industries and should be treated differently.

However, Canada is not alone in its efforts to promote culture and cultural industries. Like Canada, many countries provide direct support for their cultural industries.

For example, the European Union's media II program provides grants and loans to promote the development of film production projects aimed at the European market.

The United Kingdom provides subsidies for a wide range of artistic activities through the arts councils which are funded by lotteries, while the British Film Institute provides direct grants for film production and exhibitions.

France's Centre National de la Cinématographie uses special cinema taxes to support film production. Any producer of fiction, animation, cultural shows or documentaries whose programs have been broadcast by French television automatically receives a grant from the country's film and television industry support fund.

The Swedish Film Institute uses a tax on cinema tickets and video rentals as well as state funds to make film production grants.

Interestingly enough, the United States directly supports everything from literature to drama through the National Endowment for the Arts.

We are at a critical juncture in the history of magazine publishing in Canada as we face the choice between caving in to American pressure tactics or maintaining our right to continue the longstanding policy of ensuring that Canadians can choose to read their own magazines as well as other magazines from around the world.

Magazine publishing has never been an easy business in Canada even without the unfair competition of split-run editions of American magazines. The scale of our market, the competition for readers from American magazines, and the negative impact on our advertising revenues of the spillover advertising that Canadians see in American magazines have all meant that Canadian publishers will survive only if they produce quality magazines that Canadians want to read and at the same time operate at peak efficiency.

Canadian magazine publishers have called on this government to provide an environment of fair competition, a level playing field so they can continue to have the incentive to invest. Fair competition cannot exist when our split-run competitors have costs less than half of ours and no Canadian content.

Bill C-55 is the only measure that has been identified that is effective in preventing unfair split-run competition and also is consistent with our trade agreements. Bill C-55 does not violate the NAFTA or any other international trade obligation. It has never been challenged before the WTO or any other dispute settlement body. Bill C-55 is entirely consistent with our trade obligations.

Bill C-55 regulates foreign access to the Canadian magazine advertising services market. It is a services measure. It does not apply to or affect imports of magazines. As a services measure, it falls under the GATS. Canada did not offer and the U.S. did not obtain or pay for access to our advertising services market in the negotiation of the GATS. Canada therefore has no obligations and the U.S. has no rights vis-à-vis access to the market.

U.S. threats of retaliation under NAFTA show that it does not have a legal case to make. If it did, it would use the WTO rules, where it started the dispute in the first place, to challenge Bill C-55. Moreover, under NAFTA the United States cannot forum shop. The provision for retaliation under the cultural exemption applies only if the measure would violate an obligation in the FTA, if not for the exemption. No such obligation exists. The level of retaliation the U.S. has threatened is equally illegitimate. The fact that Canada's previous magazine measures were ruled inconsistent with the GATT does not mean the new measure would also be ruled inconsistent. Bill C-55 is completely different from the previous measures.

I would like to conclude with a quote from a recent bulletin of the Canadian Conference of the Arts which reviewed the importance of Bill C-55. “We give the last word to President Bill Clinton: We must enforce our trade laws when imports unlawfully flood our nation”.

[Commonwealth Day, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today is Commonwealth Day, a day set aside by over one-quarter of the world's population to celebrate the values of co-operation, human rights, democracy and development. The theme for this year's Commonwealth Day is music, the universal language to help us foster international learning and understanding.

The Commonwealth is a dynamic association of thousands of Commonwealth citizens active in international voluntary, professional, developmental and service organizations which constitute an important force in building international co-operation and understanding.

This Commonwealth Day is special as it marks the golden jubilee of the creation of the Commonwealth. As we look back over the past 50 years Canadians can take pride in our collective accomplishments. During the past year Canada continued to play an active role in Commonwealth fora, discussing and responding to urgent issues ranging from Nigeria and Sierra Leon to a global financial crisis.

The Commonwealth has proven itself an effective defender and promoter of democracy, human rights and sustainable development. Let us all work to protect this legacy throughout the world.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered the question.

We were talking about dealing with child poverty. We have put in place many things to assist parents who want to go back to work. We have Canada student grants as I indicated. I do not understand why the opposition does not acknowledge the tremendous benefits of the Canada child tax benefit. Perhaps it is because the Reform Party voted against it time and time again, but now the Reform Party is coming out as a saviour of children.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

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

When we talk about child poverty and our promises, we promised that we would put in the Canada child tax benefit. The Minister of Human Resources Development yesterday in the House spoke about how consultations were made on how to best deal with child poverty. The answer was $850 million in the child tax benefit. In the following budget there was another $850 million, totalling $1.7 billion. In the 1999 budget we have another $300 million.

I would say to the hon. member not only are we honouring our promises to combat child poverty but we have done it in every single budget we have looked at in the last three years.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question about child poverty.

As a mother who works outside of the home, I have always felt that as legislators, as policy makers, when we look at questions of child poverty or abuse against women and children, we have the duty to do everything we possibly can to ensure that we foster an environment to promote the economic independence of women. When we can foster the environment where women can walk away from abusive situations, it will be the children who will benefit. It will be those children of single, dual or whatever parent who will benefit. I again would welcome how we do that as a government through our tax policies.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga West.

I am delighted to speak to this issue as a mother who works outside the home and as a very proud mother of three wonderful, talented, brilliant, charming and intelligent children, ages 17, 14 and 9.

The diverse and changing nature of working family life in Canada poses ongoing challenges to policy makers. With limited resources, government priorities have placed an emphasis on assisting families in greatest need.

The government has taken direct action to help low income families with children through the Canada child tax benefit which provides a special supplement of $213 per child under the age of seven for families that do not claim child care expenses.

Thanks to the 1999 budget, by July 2000 a typical one income family will be receiving better than twice the amount of a typical two income family for the Canada child tax benefit. The figures show $2,610 per year versus $1,270 per year. Indeed with the measures announced in the last three budgets the Canada child tax benefit will be enriched by $2 billion by the year 2000.

Canada provides a range of income tax in children's benefits, but our tax system is based on individual taxation and a progressive tax rate. Moreover, when the real cost of child care in dual earner and lone parent families is taken into account, these families have relatively less after tax disposable income than single earner couples.

If paid child care was not recognized as a cost of employment to the tax system it would constitute a serious barrier to women's employment.

With regard to pensions and retirement, parents who stay at home to care for children are recognized in several ways. Parts of the retirement system provide a basic benefit for all residents and an income tested guaranteed minimum income.

There are also provisions for an income-earning spouse to contribute to a private registered retirement savings plan for a stay at home spouse.

The Canada pension plan also has specific provisions for parents who care for children at home. The child-rearing dropout provision, for example, ensures that parents who are able to contribute little or nothing to the plan while caring for a child under seven are not penalized when future benefits are calculated.

Employment insurance benefits in Canada provide temporary income replacement to individuals who qualify. To qualify for benefits a parent must have been engaged in insurable employment prior to the birth or adoption of their child. Maternity, parental and adoption benefits do, however, provide income replacement for mothers and fathers who temporarily withdraw from paid work, including part time work, to care for their infants.

In addition, parents who stay at home after their benefit period has ended are eligible for up to five years to access a range of measures to help them return to employment if they should so desire.

Our government also continues to assist Canadian children and youth through a variety of programs. I am very proud to speak about the community action program for children and the Canada prenatal nutrition program which are jointly managed by the federal, provincial and territorial governments and which provide the kind of support that families need to help their children have a good start in life.

The 1997 budget announced increased funding for these programs of $100 million for the next three years. In the 1999 budget the Canada prenatal nutrition program was further enhanced. It received an additional $75 million over the next three years to reach many more high risk pregnant women. This is a program of which many constituents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park are beneficiaries. The community action program for children and the Canada prenatal nutrition program benefits the women's health centre and the Parkdale Parents Primary Prevention Program, which is known affectionately as the “five Ps ”, and which works out of St. Joseph's Health Centre in my riding. It is a wonderful program and has assisted many, many young children and pregnant women at high risk.

We should also remember that we have Canada student grants of up to $3,000 a year which are available to both full time and part time students in financial need who have children or other dependants.

Let us look at the Liberal government's tax principles. The Liberal government's tax is based on three fundamental principles. First, our tax system must be fair. Tax reductions must benefit first those who need them the most, low and middle income Canadians.

Second, broad based tax relief should focus initially on personal income taxes. That is where the burden is the greatest. Canadians should pay taxes consistent with their capacity to pay. We have a progressive tax system in Canada.

Third, because of our debt burden, broad based tax relief should not be financed with borrowed money. The elimination of the deficit in 1997-98 allowed the government to introduce measures providing for broad based tax relief. Targeted tax reductions into critical social and economic concerns are our first priority. Our government has put in place a responsible fiscal policy that has allowed us to preserve the valued programs that matter most to Canadians. Targeted tax relief has been provided for students, for charities, for persons with disabilities and for the children of parents with low incomes.

The Liberal approach has been based on results. With an improved fiscal situation over recent years, the Liberal government has been able to offer targeted tax relief where the need was the greatest. With the budget balanced, the government is in a position to do even more, and not on borrowed money.

The 1998 and 1999 Liberal government budgets will provide tax relief of $3.9 billion in 1999-2000, $6 billion in 2000-2001 and $6.6 billion in 2001-2002, for a total of $16.5 billion over three years so that all Canadian parents, those who stay at home and those who work outside the home, have more money in their pockets.

As the financial resources permit, general tax relief will continue to be provided, the priority being personal income taxes for middle and low income Canadians. Families with incomes of $45,000 or less will have their taxes reduced by a minimum of 10% and in some cases more.

Typical one-earner families with two children and incomes of $30,000 or less will pay no net federal tax. Families with incomes of $45,000 or less will have their taxes reduced by a minimum of 10% and in some cases even more.

As a result of the 1998 budget, 400,000 lower income Canadians no longer pay any federal income taxes. The 1999 measures will ensure that an additional 200,000 lower income Canadians will no longer pay federal income taxes. That brings to 600,000 the total number of taxpayers removed from the tax rolls due to both budgets.

We welcome a debate but we will not exploit it as a way to divide Canadian parents and Canadian women whose top priority, be it at home or outside the home, is giving their children the best future they possibly can. Let us start on that debate now.

Let us look at the disadvantages of dual earner families, people who have to pay for child care, people who do not have the ability to stay at home. We have talked many times about looking at having the whole child care benefit totally tax deductible. As we want to encourage women to export abroad they will be away from home more. We need to make sure that we have in place the good care givers and that those expenses can be deductible and have the same position as the cost of a secretary or the cost of janitorial staff.

Let us open the debate on what else we can do. Let us look at what we can do to make sure that we have in place all the things that are needed to provide the best for our children.

I would say one thing to the members of the Reform Party. I welcome this opportunity to look at all the ways we can best assist our society in making sure that our children are taken care of.

[International Women's Day, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 5, I will be hosting a breakfast in my riding to commemorate International Women's Day and to celebrate the accomplishments of the women of Parkdale—High Park.

International Women's Day in Canada was born in the 1900s. Women in large urban centres began fighting unsafe working conditions, contesting low wages and the lack of job security. In 1907 International Women's Day was first celebrated in Copenhagen, Denmark, where thousands of women rallied and marched in the streets.

Parkdale—High Park will celebrate the success of local women, including Connie Dejak, Vice-President of the Runnymede Chronic Care Hospital; Susan D'Olivera, of the Parkdale Community Watch; Dorothy Grey from the Parkdale Community Station; Mary Jo Leddy, a professor and refugee activist; award winning and critically acclaimed actor Fiona Reid; and film and television producer Mary Young-Leckie.

International Women's Day is a wonderful occasion to acknowledge the progress made by women from all walks of life in the advancement of gender equality, as well as an opportunity to honour all women in our communities.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, not being an economic expert I cannot really comment on the bond ratings. One of the things this government is trying to do through our debt payment plan, which I noted during my discourse, is reduce the debt to keep interest rates down. That is the way to keep them down.

One of the fears mentioned by my constituents was that by not paying down that debt, by not paying attention to that debt, we will have a problem and we will be subject to interest rates going up. The interest rate sensitivity is important and it is also equally important that we continue to pay down that debt.

Again, I think this plan of action the government has speaks for itself: 7.8% unemployment and more jobs created in this country than in any other G-7 country. I submit the Minister of Finance is on the right track.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have the same great respect for him as he has for me.

I point out to my hon. colleague across the way that there is no surplus. I suggest the member look at the budget sheets we have. Income goes in under the consolidated revenue fund and expenses are made. There is no surplus fund. There is no reserve fund. I believe the media feed these things that are not true. It does not exist and has not existed since 1986. One of the concerns noted by my constituents is to bring EI rates down and they have actually come down.