Inky Mark

[The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, could we imagine the APEC coverage if the Prime Minister's office was running the CBC? Jean Carle would be the news director and if Jason Moscovitz said anything controversial they would immediately cut to a commercial. Peter Mansbridge's newscast would be a lot shorter because Ivan Whitehall would read it first and cross out anything embarrassing.

Why is the Prime Minister trying to control the CBC? Whatever happened to freedom of the press?

[The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, members of the House should know that the Prime Minister has introduced a bill that will allow him to fire—and I say again fire—the president and every director of the CBC without cause.

Who is in line to be the next CBC president? Peter Donolo?

[The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just cannot stand dissent. Just ask the former chair of the committee on fisheries or the former chief actuary of the CPP fund or students at APEC or Terry Milewski.

This House should know that the Prime Minister has introduced a bill that will allow him to fire—I say again fire—the president and every director of the CBC—

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 22nd, 1998]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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,—

<—which this minister is so concerned about—

—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.

[Canadian Heritage, October 22nd, 1998]

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?

[Canadian Heritage, October 22nd, 1998]

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?

[Apec Summit, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in this government when cabinet ministers are having problems—and yes, we do have a cabinet minister with a problem, and we have been at it all week—the Prime Minister usually will not allow the minister to resign. The Prime Minister usually waits until he can shuffle the cabinet minister out the back door.

Instead of waiting for the next cabinet shuffle, why will the Prime Minister not just let the solicitor general do the honourable thing and resign?

[Indonesia, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Associated Press reports “Although ethnic Chinese people represent just 4% of Indonesia's 202 million people, they dominate commerce and industry. They are frequently scapegoats during troubled times”.

The Asian financial crisis is hitting Indonesia hard and Indonesian Chinese are being hit harder as scapegoats. For example, Chinese women and young girls are being gang raped. Stores and homes of ethnic Chinese are looted and torched. Many ethnic Chinese are being murdered. Some say that what is happening in Indonesia resembles ethnic cleansing. Ethnic Chinese are fleeing their homes from Malaysia, the Philippines and elsewhere to save their lives.

This government brags about its human rights record. When will the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific speak up for human rights in Indonesia?

[National Capital Commission, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a secretive organization of the government is making decisions behind closed doors without public scrutiny.

The unelected National Capital Commission proposes to spend some $5 billion on a questionable project affecting the city's tax base.

Now we have learned that unelected NCC chairman Marcel Beaudry pressured elected Ottawa city councillor Elisabeth Arnold. Mr. Beaudry asked Councillor Arnold to withhold two recommendations from a city draft report. The recommendations strongly object to the destruction of the heritage buildings and the shrinkage of downtown development the NCC's Metcalfe Street proposal would cause.

We have advice for the National Capital Commission. Be transparent and be accountable.

[Special Interest Groups Funding Accountability Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I stand in support of the private member's motion submitted by the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

In the debate this morning I believe people are really missing the boat. They are getting the basic simple premise of this bill confused. I will reread the intent of this bill. The intent is that those receiving money from the government table a report on how the funds were used. In principle I do not think there is anyone in the House who would disagree with that. This is an issue of accountability.

As members of parliament we are accountable. We are accountable on how we spend our budgets and how we offer public service to the people of this country. Obviously our books are open to people all the time. I cannot understand why members in the House would disagree that any groups in this country receiving grants should be accountable for how these funds are spent.

I will give members an example of my own experience this summer. I called the National Action Committee on the Status of Women for an audit. I asked for a copy of its expenditures. Lo and behold, was I surprised how difficult it was to get a copy of expenditures for this past year. I was told I would have to go through the access to information. I did that and I am still waiting for the report. I contacted the Library of Parliament. I received a 1995-96 copy of its expenditures, but that is several years old. I can imagine what citizens of this country have to go through when a member of parliament does not have access to records of expenditures of taxpayer dollars when one needs to.

One thing I found ironic this summer was that having spoken to the media about expenditures of the national action committee, they seem to have all the figures at hand.

It appeared they had no problems getting the fine details but this member of parliament certainly has problems doing that.

I ask that all members of this House support this bill, certainly in principle, because it is about accountability and how money is spent by the special interest groups in this country.