moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-103, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19, on page 6, with the following:
"39. Where, before the date that this Act is assented to, a particular number of".
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address Bill C-103, particularly this amendment.
This amendment is designed to delete the clause that really takes an arbitrary poke at one particular magazine, Sports Illustrated . The legislation is retroactive and most parliamentarians probably feel it is not a good way to approach these things.
I want to say a little more about the principle behind protectionism and whether or not we can all of a sudden set aside a particular sector on the basis that it is somehow different, even though the facts show that it ain't necessarily so. We have seen this over and over again in all kinds of sectors of the economy.
When we discussed it in committee we raised the issue of the retail industry. One thing I pointed out was that we had contradictory ways of doing business. We have the retail sector and all kinds of American companies coming into the country and doing well. By the way, Canadian companies also go into the United States and do well because they are able to provide some value to the consumers in those markets. It may create a situation where people can go into a store and perhaps get something for less than they had been paying because somebody has seen they can make a profit by offering products for less. When that happens consumers have more choice, better value and ultimately more money in their pockets as a result.
Let me apply the debate to what has happened with Sports Illustrated . Sports Illustrated was coming into the country. It was offering the advertisers a product that was at least competitive or perhaps at even a little less than what Canadian advertisers were charging. That was despite the fact that Sports Illustrated did not have access to the tax deductibility provisions available to magazines that carry 75 per cent Canadian content. It was still able to offer extremely good value.
People will ask what that does for Canada. It allows advertisers either to get more bang for their buck through their advertising, thereby increasing the reach of their advertising message, or it allows them to improve their bottom line, to have more profit. What does that do for the country? If there is more profit of course there is more disposable income that can be spent on other goods and services. That is basic economics, economics 101.
Even though cultural product is difficult to define, I do not buy the argument that just because it is a cultural product we can throw the economic arguments out the window. They apply in every other sector and they certainly apply in the area of culture.
I encourage my friends across the way to remember that although culture is important we cannot go around suggesting that it runs by a different set of economics. That is not the case at all.
I have pointed out with respect to other Canadian cultural industries that given a chance they will prosper. They do not need government intervention. They do not need government protection. We see it over and over again, certainly in the cultural industries but in other industries as well.
It is a very arbitrary move to go back, to pick out SI in particular and to say it is not allowed to do that. Even going beyond that I would say it is time we truly had free trade in the country and truly applied it to the cultural sector. Canadians would take advantage and turn the tables on the Americans and the rest of the world because we have a superior product. We have the best artists, the best actors and the best writers in the world. They could do battle with any country in the world and not only compete but win.
I am asking the House to adopt the measure and ultimately defeat Bill C-103.