Debates of June 6th, 1994

Young Offenders Act

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to enlighten the hon. member who just spoke, in an electronic vote to ensure there is one vote per caller, it is necessary to give a number which identifies that vote. Once the vote has been cast that number can no longer be used, just in case the hon. member was misinformed about the purpose of the PIN number. It is not an infringement on privacy. It is so the votes cannot be stacked or that multiple voting by one person cannot take place.

The member opposite is under no obligation certainly to cast his vote or take part in this type of a constituency poll. Perhaps that may be more suitable to the member's wishes because this government has for so long simply closed the doors, kept the public out and made decisions behind closed doors. I would like to ask the member if that is his preference, of making decisions in government that would affect the people behind closed doors without input from the public.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. We are not doing anything behind closed doors. We are bringing it here to the Parliament of Canada. Why do we have to hold secret votes through PIN numbers? Is this not where we are going to vote? Is this not where the member is going to represent his constituents? Does he not keep in touch with his constituents?

What about the poor people, what about the people who still have dial phones? They cannot phone their local member of Parliament. What is wrong with talking with them face to face, with holding town hall meetings, telephoning them, et cetera?

I am glad the hon. member raised this concern but this is where we vote, not through 1-900 numbers.

What about the poor people? Do they not have rights to input to their MPs? It looks like in the Reform territory it is only for the rich, it is only who can afford the push button numbers.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member could make clear what his objection is. If I understand him correctly he is objecting to the idea that members of Parliament should be asked to express themselves in this way because obviously we have the opportunity that other Canadians do not. We can vote here, not with a PIN number, but with our vote as a member of Parliament.

That is certainly what I intend to do. I was confused when I received a letter inviting me to cast a vote in this way because it seems to me that I have that right to do so as a member of Parliament. I will do it when it comes up.

It would be interesting to know whether this is a referendum among members of Parliament that is sort of a substitute mechanism for the votes that we take here, or whether we were simply being included in a larger referendum. I thought that is what a certain Reform Party member was up to. I received the thing today and now I am not sure exactly what is going on. Perhaps the member would want to comment on that.

Perhaps he could also say whether he objects to the whole concept. Let us assume for a minute that everyone has the kind of phone that is needed. I take it the member would still have some reservations about this kind of process. Would he? Is it simply a matter of everyone not having the right kind of phone?

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member sits so close to the Reform members and I wish they would turn around sometimes and seek his advice because he has been here for a long time and knows what the democratic process is all about.

Initially I paid very little attention to it because I thought it was just surveying the members of Parliament. When I saw the line "you need your parents' consent to incur these charges if you are younger than 18", I was a little offended because I only have one parent left. My mother is 86 and I do not know whether she would give her consent to vote this way.

I suspect that this letter was sent to the public and it was concerned that someone under 18 would not pay the Reform for that one dollar call, and 95 cents thereafter. That was my concern.

That anyone should charge to glean people's opinion, people who voted for us, my goodness, is the hon. member not getting a high enough salary? Is that why he is putting a charge on this? Is he waiting for his pension or is he afraid he is not going to get a pension because he will not be here very long?

I have a concern that this letter went not only to the members of Parliament, but I suspect that this letter probably went to the public at large.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-37, amendments to the Young Offenders Act, amendments that Canadians have been requesting, amendments that are long overdue.

A couple of weeks ago I received in my office a package of information from the justice department about the Young Offenders Act. The information was all about the perception and reality of the Young Offenders Act. The information appeared to be a justification of the Young Offenders Act as it now stands with statistics and convincing bureaucrats telling us that the perceptions that Canadians have of the act are wrong.

It was therefore no great surprise to learn that the amendments to the Young Offenders Act that the minister is proposing are quite minor.

I am pleased that some changes are being made to the legislation and while I would not like to see young people locked up and the key thrown away, I would like to have seen stronger amendments being proposed.

Canadians have reached the point at which they are demanding safety for women, children and ordinary people on the streets and in their own homes. One of the fastest growing categories of crime is that committed by young offenders. It is not uncommon to hear of the door of a home being kicked down and the family terrorized, beaten and robbed.

Throughout the country people are being beaten, stabbed, kicked and murdered by juveniles. We hear the authorities saying to people things like do not take matters into your own hands, leave it to the police.

Instead of people being more secure the wave of youth crime continues to rise, with sentences young people receive from the courts being a poor reflection of the severity of the crime.

How have we ever allowed such ugly violence to become an every day occurrence in Canada, this country that treasures peace and beauty? We have had human behaviour experts tell us on and on why violence is a growing phenomenon. Violence in the home breeds violence. The structure of the schools stifles imagination. Serial killer cards, violent cartoons, Dungeons and Dragons games blur the line between fantasy and reality. There is the old favourite: "Dad was drunk and mom couldn't get up in the morning so how can anyone expect better from their kids?".

Unfortunate as a child may be to be born to such parents this really is nothing new. Fewer children than we would like to believe have ideal parents. For a long time before this present day crescendo of modern violence children with less than ideal parents grew up knowing right from wrong and being able to restrain themselves from causing vandalism and mayhem.

For those who did commit an offence authorities did not tolerate this behaviour and the offender was usually dealt with swiftly and properly.

I always find it refreshing to go home to the Cariboo-Chilcotin where great intelligence is not as important as good common sense. There people remember that once they were children too and they remember what it was like to be a child. Childhood is not something new. People who live in Horsefly or Tatlayoko, British Columbia, for example, offer some other reasons for the difficulties our communities are having with youth criminals.

What are they saying about young people and crime? In a letter from Quesnel signed by 20 constituents they say: "If we are to avoid the increase in crime which is currently plaguing Canada we must have disciplinary measures which are strong enough to discourage criminal intent. Young people today are more criminally aggressive because they are very aware no action can be taken against them".

Among some of our youth this attitude is reinforced by peer pressure that whatever crime they commit will go unpunished. Even if caught by the police and then moved to the family courtroom and then passed on to the unending counselling, the community service, the probation officer, and even perhaps the incarceration, these only become subjects of ridicule, more material for building the macho image, the badge of acceptance for those who really count within the gang. However, there is nothing to change the attitude or cause them to search for different friends.

It was not always this way. I once had an elderly man come into my pastor's study. In the course of our conversation he told me that he had once done something that caused him to be sentenced for a long time in the former B.C. penitentiary. After serving a good portion of his sentence he was called into the warden's office where he was informed that by taking a number of strokes of the paddle the remainder of his sentence would be reduced by half. Without any hesitation he agreed to take the paddle.

However, after having been securely bound with leather straps and receiving those strokes he said to me: "I didn't realize what I was asking for. Afterwards I knew I would do anything to avoid that kind of punishment again".

After his release he received an education, became an accountant, married, raised a family and contributed much to his community. If violence breeds violence, as we are told ad nauseam, it certainly did not in this case.

What the experts so frequently fail to mention is that violence is part of everyone's make-up. Its seeds are in all of us. Any child psychologist knows that to develop normally a child must have limits. How often do we hear the expression `the terrible twos', the age when a child first realizes that he or she can try mom or dad's patience to the limit?

One of the responsibilities of parents is to establish appropriate limits within which their children may discover reality. As a parent I know that these limits are seriously tested by a growing child with expanding horizons. Whether it is the terrible twos or a teenager who is continually coming in after curfew, sometimes force is required to maintain even the most appropriate limits when negotiations break down.

Such an event was reported in the B.C. media some months ago. A mother who happened to be a medical doctor took her little child to the supermarket to get some groceries. Things were not going so well between mother and child and a couple of roll around the floor, kicking the feet tantrums had to be dealt with quietly but firmly. It was not easy to get the groceries through the checkout and into the car with a yelling child but it got done. While driving out of the parking lot the child had another tantrum, almost causing a car accident. At this point the mother pulled over to the curb, stopped the car and administered the flat of her hand three or four times to the child's bottom. Then with the situation finally under control she prepared to drive home.

What this mother did not realize was that a government social worker had witnessed the whole episode from the beginning in the store to the end in the car. With the authority given by the B.C. government she removed the child from the mother's care.

If we are concerned about violence in our society we need to recall that there was less violence before corporal punishment was outlawed. Children need protection from beatings and abuse at the hands of abusive adults with uncontrollable tempers, but we cannot compare a considered, well controlled spanking of a child or a well measured, state administered paddling with the uncontrolled violence that is being committed by youthful criminals. There are limits beyond which behaviour is no longer acceptable.

I am not advocating that violence is the answer to righting the wrongs of our young people. I am all for programs in which troubled young people have the opportunity to take stock of themselves and with proper guidance are able to realize that a life of crime is not the way to go. I do realize the amendments the minister is proposing contain suggestions for rehabilitation instead of the offender being held in custody. In some cases this is the right way to treat an individual.

However, my main concern with the proposed amendments is twofold. First, the age of responsibility should have been lowered to 10. While violent crime tends to be committed by youthful offenders, we are hearing more and more in the communities about children who cannot be charged because they are under the age of responsibility. They have been stealing cars and other personal possessions. These children should be held accountable. Their problems should be addressed before they continue down the road to a full blown life of crime.

Being held responsible brings me to my second area of concern: the rights of the victim. All too often there is little consideration for the victim or the victim's family. Young offenders go to court, the sentence is passed, and the general public rarely gets to know what is going on. All young offenders who are charged and appear before a court should have their names and the details of the offences published.

Canadians have a right, particularly neighbours, to know what is happening in their neighbourhoods. While the proposed amendments could allow release of information about young offenders to affected members of the public, it is my opinion that all Canadians should be aware of the offences that young people commit.

The amendments would allow for victims, if they so desire, to make a statement about how a young offender's crime has affected them. I applaud this aspect of the amendments and hope that all victims of crime will allow their account of the ordeal to be read out in court.

Not only should the public be told about young offenders. There should be accountability for young offenders' actions. I note the minister is recommending that youth who commit property crimes or less serious offences could be made to do community service or pay restitution to the victim. That is a good start, but how about holding the parents of the children jointly responsible for their sons' or daughters' activities?

Canadians have long been calling for a better justice system. The current Young Offenders Act, a small part of the justice system, is simply not working. Canadians want to see sentences reflect the severity of the crime. They want to feel safer in their homes, on their streets and in their communities.

The minor amendments to the Young Offenders Act being proposed are simply addressing the promises made in the Liberal's red book election propaganda. They are not addressing the needs of Canadians from coast to coast. Canadians are concerned about teenage murders, the increasing number of teenage gangs and young people going to school armed with weapons. Canadians have a right to receive some assurance and to know that parliamentarians are working with them in mind.

An in depth review of the Young Offenders Act will be made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The public will be involved to the greatest extent possible. We are told the committee will make consultations. Canadians are

going to tell the government just what they want to see changed. I applaud this, but some changes cannot be legislated.

In much of the correspondence I receive is an underlying theme that children are growing up in a society devoid of hard work ethics and moral values. We have to teach our children the values with which many Canadians grew up, values that enabled them to build the country to be what it is, values that somehow in the materialistic and morally bankrupt society seem to have been lost. If the government listens and if it includes the public's ideas for reforming the Young Offenders Act maybe we will see the real changes that are being called for.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the comments of my hon. colleague. I compliment him for obviously spending a lot of time going through all clauses of the bill. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how one looks at it, I do not agree with many of his conclusions. I want to compliment him because he has obviously put a lot of care, time and effort into preparing for what he has done today.

I disagree with him on a number of areas. The bill is a compromise for what is asked by some who I do not believe represent the majority of Canadians. It addresses those issues that need to be addressed in the immediate future. The bill is going to be up for review in its entirety as the minister requested.

Knowing how thoughtful the member has been in his remarks, in spite of the fact that I disagree with a number of them, I want to get back to the issue of polling as started by one of his colleagues. I have great difficulty with legislating that way on all kinds of grounds: on moral grounds to start with because when we are legislating for a small group of people we can as legislators be easily swayed, particularly when a system is designed so that one actually pays for the call.

I submit, although I am not a sociologist, that system would automatically lead one to pay when one is against rather than to pay to express one's opinion. That is the way people normally think. One would not likely pay to phone someone to say one agrees with the status quo. One is more likely to pay to protest. That is human nature.

Does the member think this kind of polling is proper? After all, one has to pay a private enterprise to be issued with House of Commons letterhead, with the coat of arms of our country on the top. It was signed at the bottom by a person purporting to be chief returning officer. I believe that to be impersonating an officer of Parliament.

Chief Returning Officer Victor Bennington signed the letter with the coat of arms of Canada on it. It asks MPs to make a telephone call which results in an expenditure to some enterprise, the telephone company or whatever, of $1 plus 95 cents and so on. We could easily argue that this is a fund raising letter on House of Commons letterhead, signed by someone pretending to be an officer of Parliament.

Is this in the name of justice? Will this make Canada a more just society? After listening to what that member said and as profoundly as he believes what he said, I cannot help but ask him whether he agrees with the nonsense that all members were distributed earlier today or whenever it was.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin did not refer to the survey in his remarks, I am sure he is aware from question period that he does not need to reply to the question. However, he has the floor.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, whether the questions and comments are about what another member did or whether they are on what I put forward to the House, I would be happy to respond only to the extent of conversations I have had with my Reform colleague.

Polling is something that every party does. I am sure the Liberal Party does it. The member is attempting to poll a broad cross-section of Canadians to find out their views. I do not see anything wrong with that. I guess we disagree on that point too.

With regard to payment, the payment is simply for the costs of the poll. Usually polls are done and the government ends up paying for them from the public purse. The member has said that this would be a poll paid by those who wish to participate in it. It has been set up so that a person with a PIN can only vote once. They can only vote with the knowledge that if they do so they are going to be paying for the costs of the calls and the running the poll. That is all it is.

The alternative to that is to hire a company, charge it to government expense, and not let the results be known, keep them secret. That is not the Reform way of doing it. We are doing it transparently. We are doing it openly. The results will be announced for the Canadian public to know. That is the Reform way of doing it.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member say these are minor amendments. I do not think we are looking at the same bill. If we look carefully at the highlights of the bill, according to the minister there will be an increase in sentencing from 5 to 10 years and from 3 to 7 years for certain types of offences. I would not call that minor, Mr. Speaker, when we say that a young person will spend four or five years more in prison for a crime.

I know he has committed a crime. I know he has to be sentenced, but this is not a minor change. Do I have any time left, Mr. Speaker?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Unfortunately, your time is up.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

I think the hon. member should simply read the bill, and he will realize that these are not minor amendments, and that on the contrary, the amendments this bill contains are very serious.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

We disagree all over the place, do we not? It seems to me that a victim who has lost health and lost family members has lost a major and significant part of their life as well.

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

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pursue a question that I asked of the government a couple of weeks ago. It was actually answered by the Prime Minister.

It had to do with the testimony in committee of someone representing the tobacco industry who threatened to use the North American free trade agreement and the protection of trademark and the property rights entrenched therein to get in the way of the government's apparent intention to bring in plain packaging of cigarettes as a way of discouraging the use of tobacco and I presume particularly by way of discouraging young people who may be attracted by elegant and attractive packaging, although presumably this is something that not just young people are vulnerable to.

I say apparent intention of the government because I am not absolutely sure that the government and the Minister of Health are really intent on doing this. I hope they are because I think it is a worthwhile experiment and I hope that they will not be intimidated by these kinds of threats.

When the Prime Minister answered my question he said he had a different view of the free trade agreement. We have seen a few times when the Prime Minister thinks that if he has a different view of the free trade agreement this is enough. The fact is that the free trade agreement has a text that can be adjudicated in a dispute settlement process and in a variety of other ways. It may not matter what the Prime Minister's view is if it is the view of certain multinational corporations that regard what the government plans to do as objectionable.

If they take the view that the agreement prohibits this, they have a great deal of ability to enforce that. It would not be out of sync with what the agreement actually seeks to do, as I understand it, and that is to limit the power of government to get in the way of transnational business.

This is not the sort of idea that comes out of left field, so to speak. This is the purpose of these agreements, to limit the power of democratically elected governments to get in the way of the profit strategies of transnational corporations.

We have seen other elements of this where the same kind of property right has been entrenched in these free trade agreements or in the GATT or even more shamefully in this House before these agreements were even signed. I am thinking now of the legislation which in two different stages brought about the abandonment of the generic drug legislation that we had in this country. Again, it was one of the ways in which this new free trading regime we have as a result of the FTA and NAFTA and now as a result of the GATT has given new freedom to the corporate agenda.

I hope the government will go ahead with this experiment and not draw back. If it draws back we will never know whether the threat that was made that day, even though it was publicly sloughed off by the Prime Minister, is in fact the real reason. I would certainly encourage the government to test the agreement on this and in other ways.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the Prime Minister answered the question very well when he said to the hon. member in reply: "I do not think NAFTA has a lot to say about the way we should control that type of problem in Canada". He went on to say: "Sometimes we hear things in committee we do not agree with. Evidently the hon. member did not share that view, and I do not either".

The member should have been satisfied by the Prime Minister's answer. However, I will try and elaborate on it.

First I would state that possible proposals for plain packaging requirements for cigarettes are still under review by the committee. The government awaits the report of the committee with great interest. The committee recommendations would be studied by the government with careful attention to Canada's obligation under NAFTA and under other treaties such as the GATT.

However NAFTA contains provisions allowing exceptions to trade mark rights. NAFTA also includes provisions that recognizes Canada's right to adopt or maintain sanitary measures and standard related measures for the protection of human health. As well, the government will ensure that any measure it chooses to adopt will not only achieve our goal of protecting the health of

Canadians but will also be consistent with our international obligations.

I hope this additional information will be satisfactory to the member.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on June 1 I put a question regarding urea formaldehyde foam and I would like to put on record a little bit of the investigation that I have undertaken in this regard.

I am interested in this because a constituent has been having some trouble selling a home with urea formaldehyde foam in it.

I contacted Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and was assured that whether a house had UFFI foam, as it is known, in it or not made no difference to their loaning money or insuring such a mortgage. I was told that the banks take a similar view. However, apparently some real estate boards in their agreement to sell a home require that it be stated if the home has urea formaldehyde foam in it. This has caused my constituent and others some concern.

I might just review very quickly that this insulation was approved in Canada for use in exterior wood frame walls. It has a good "R" value and in fact under the Canadian Home Insulation Program in 1975 to 1978 the government paid $500 to home owners who would install this insulation.

Apparently during the curing process, some formaldehyde comes off the cure. Formaldehyde is colourless, with a strong odour and can generally be detected at parts above one part per million. Unfortunately, formaldehyde is found in dry cleaning chemicals, paper products, no iron fabrics, diapers, pillow cases, the glue in particle board and plywood, cosmetics, paints, cigarette smoke, exhaust from automobiles, gas appliances, fireplaces and wood stoves. It may well be that some of the crimes attributed to urea formaldehyde foam arise from other household products.

The irony of the situation is that the federal government banned this insulation in 1980 and then spent $272 million in the ensuing seven years to assist home owners in replacing urea formaldehyde foam at a cost of $8,500 per home.

A further irony is that the longest civil suit in Canadian history ended on December 13, 1991, when Mr. Justice Rene Hurtubise from the Quebec Superior Court handed down a decision saying that the owners of the homes who brought the case had failed to prove that UFFI had made them sick, offered no proof that UFFI should be removed and did not prove that leaving UFFI in place reduced the value of their homes. This finding has been echoed by pathologists and many others who have tested these homes.

I will conclude with the conclusion from a report by Carson Dunlap and Associates Limited, consulting engineers, that says: "We believe that those who have urea formaldehyde foam insulation in their homes should enjoy their houses and sleep well at night. It is the sincere hope of the authors that the marketplace will respond appropriately. The owners of properties with this type of insulation should not be penalized financially and no stigma should be attached to these homes. We would further urge real estate associations and boards across Canada to consider dropping the UFFI clause from purchase contracts. Similarly, we would ask mortgage lenders not to penalize those who have UFFI in their homes. UFFI is simply not the problem it was once feared to be".

I would hope that the minister would be able when the current appeal which I believe is in process happens that we could get this matter sent to rest.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House and address the issue of urea formaldehyde foam insulation and in particular its effect on market value of homes insulated with UFFI.

As my hon. colleague pointed out, during the 1970s many homes were insulated with UFFI. Let me assure everyone that no Canadian whose home has been insulated with UFFI has been denied mortgage insurance from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In fact during the past few years homes insulated with UFFI have been trading on a regular basis.

I would also like to point out that for the past year a UFFI declaration has not been required for the purpose of obtaining mortgage insurance under the National Housing Act. Through mortgage insurance CMHC provides Canadians with equal access to mortgage financing anywhere in Canada.

I would further like to add that the fact that CMHC is providing mortgage insurance on homes that have contained UFFI even though remedial action has been taken has helped to minimize any negative perceptions.

As my hon. colleague may know, the six UFFI cases determined by all of the parties involved to be representative of all the issues at stake are still before the Court of Appeal of Quebec. An appeal date of September 11, 1995 has tentatively been scheduled. I would further point out that in their factum the plaintiffs have removed all their claims related to health.

My apologies for my voice, Mr. Speaker. I had my tonsils out.

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise again the question I had raised some months ago

concerning the government's response to the task force report on the Canadian magazine industry. The task force report, I believe, was made public in March though I understand the government was aware of the major recommendations in January.

It has now been approximately five months since the government was aware of the task force report recommendations and some decisions are needed.

The task force made some very excellent recommendations but there was one recommendation that concerned me and I think concerns all those Canadians who would like to maintain our cultural identity.

The task force recommended that magazines that otherwise would be subject to the proposed tax as of the date of this report should be exempt at the number of issues per annum that were distributed in Canada in the year preceding this report. In other words, this means the task force was recommending that Sports Illustrated which had started a split run be allowed to continue to print a Canadian edition. There is quite a bit of opposition to this and it is about time the government made some decision on this.

Split runs are American magazines which incur all of their costs in terms of writing, editorial content and so forth in the United States and then, in essence, dump their product on the Canadian market. The law now prohibits Canadian advertisers from deducting their advertising costs in those magazines. Therefore, it is an effective barrier in attempting to maintain the viability of the Canadian magazine industry.

So far we have had no commitments from the government regarding split runs and the postal subsidy which was also part of the recommendation of the task force. To consider allowing Sports Illustrated to continue what I would call its illegal practices, even when it initiated the split run it claimed it got around Canadian law by not physically shipping its contents across the border but rather electronically sending its contents to a Canadian printing house. For all intents and purposes, I still cannot see how this is legal and has been allowed under the law.

It is about time that the government stood up to this type of pressure particularly from Time-Warner and its magazines. Already Reader's Digest is deemed Canadian for the postal subsidy. I understand for example that the revenue from Time magazine, the Canadian edition, is greater than the entire profits of the Canadian magazine industry.

As well there is an urgency in this matter. As things stand now we have no law in place to prevent more split run editions. If a number of American magazines, let us say Newsweek , wants to set up a split run and do exactly the same as Sports Illustrated has done, there is really no law in effect now to prevent Newsweek or any other American magazine company from carrying out and establishing another split run.

As well, why would we allow Sports Illustrated , having broken the law, to be rewarded as opposed to any others which attempt to do a split run and which will be forced to cease and desist? It makes no sense at all.

It is time the government stood up for Canadian cultural industries and institutions. It is time it tested the cultural exemption under the free trade agreement. It is time the government accepted the report that rejected the one recommendation that would exempt Sports Illustrated .

It is time the government acted because the magazine industry in this country is in a terrible financial situation. The uncertainty the lack of action and determination by the government is creating is hurting the industry even more.

I hope the government in its response today will be able to announce to the House and to Canadians that indeed the government has made a decision, it will accept the recommendations of the report with the one exception that it will not allow Sports Illustrated to continue as a split run edition.

I look forward to the reply.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the task force on the Canadian magazine industry released its report on March 24. The task force recommended that a new excise tax be applied to split run magazines distributed in Canada. The task force also recommended that split run that would have been subject to the tax as of the date of the report should be exempt for the number of issues published in the year preceding the report.

We welcome the report of the task force. This is a priority for the government and we intend to respond in a way which will safeguard the economic foundations of the Canadian magazine industry.

As the Minister of Canadian Heritage stated in this House on the day the report was released, it will be important to consult with interested parties before the government presents any new policy before this House.

The government confirms its commitment to a long-established strategic objective aimed at protecting the financial basis of the Canadian magazine industry.

To reach this objective, the government uses instruments that promote channelling advertising revenue to Canadian magazines, since to be viable, a Canadian magazine industry must have a sound financial basis.

The establishment of split-run Canadian regional editions of foreign titles which contain advertising aimed at Canadian markets is thus not consistent with the policy because revenues from advertising directed at Canadians flow to these editions of foreign titles.

The government is thus committed to ensuring that Canadians have access to Canadian ideas and information through genuinely Canadian periodicals, while not restricting the sale of foreign periodicals in Canada. It will be in light of these policy objectives that the government is studying the task force report to determine its response.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Under our standing orders the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Also under our standing orders we adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.)