Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1995

Excise Tax Act

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-103, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to introduce for third reading Bill C-103, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, a measure in support of Canada's magazine industry.

Canadian periodicals are a vital element of our cultural expression. They provide news and information, critical analysis, informed discourse and lively dialogue, all of which contribute to our sense of identity as Canadians.

In cultural terms, the Canadian magazine industry is a flourishing sector with over 1,300 titles available from over 1,000 publishers. The editorial pages of Canadian magazines contain ideas and information that are the page equivalent of 2,500 books per year.

Magazines reach specialized audiences not accessible to the other media, such as newspapers and television. They target new audiences and give them an opportunity to speak, thus creating a bond between readers who share similar ideas. Clearly, they offer very significant cultural advantages to a society as scattered and disparate as our own.

Canadian magazines also provide writers and artists with a means of expression. About 92 per cent of the editorial content of Canadian periodicals is produced by Canadian writers employed by these periodicals or working for them on a freelance basis. Canadians are also responsible for over 92 per cent of illustrations and photographs.

Canadians have access to a wide array of Canadian periodicals, from current affairs magazines like L'Actualité and Maclean's , to special interest publications in areas such as the arts, science and leisure, to general interest magazines aimed at a wide audience.

Some of these publications are academic in nature while others are low circulation magazines whose openness to experimentation in the arts and literature leads to cultural renewal.

The first Canadian periodicals were created in Nova Scotia at the end of the 18th century by immigrants from New England. The history of periodicals in Canada follows that of many writers, artists and merchants. It has led to the conception of innovative ideas, to the creation of original visual images, and to the emergence of new forms of cultural expression.

More importantly, the history of periodicals in Canada is also a political saga in which individual interests have survived in an environment dominated by foreign interests.

For the government, the challenge has always been to strike a balance between preserving Canada's cultural autonomy and allowing the free flow of ideas.

The factors that define the environment in which Canadian publishers compete for Canadian readers include: the impact of foreign magazines on the market; the relatively small size of the Canadian population; the difficulties and cost of distribution over our huge territory; the openness of Canadians to foreign cultural products; the effects of the cover prices of imported magazines on the Canadian price structure; news stand competition from foreign magazines; and the impact of overflow advertising on the potential advertising market in Canada.

In addition, today's tough financial and fiscal environment takes its toll. In 1992 for example, more than half of Canadian magazines had no operating profits. The average operating profit for the industry as a whole was only 2.36 per cent. The success of the Canadian magazine industry can be better described as cultural rather than financial. Canadian publishing ventures of all types have been sustained by the creativity of writers and publishers and the interest of readers.

Magazines must build and maintain their readership over the long term. Also essential to their survival are advertisers. Canadian magazines depend on advertising for 65 per cent of their revenue.

The government's policy concerning the Canadian magazine industry is to encourage Canadian businesses to advertise in Canadian periodicals and in periodicals whose content is original rather than recycled, and to help publishers reach their market.

Since 1965, two measures have helped inject advertising revenues into the Canadian magazine industry. These two measures are customs tariff 9958, which prohibits the importing of split run periodicals, and section 19 of the Income Tax Act, which permits the deduction of the costs of advertising directed at the Canadian market, provided this advertising is placed in Canadian editions of Canadian owned or controlled periodicals.

In April 1993, the arrival of Sports Illustrated Canada in our newsstands marked the beginning of a new way of dealing with the Canadian market for the American magazine industry. Sports Illustrated Canada was able to sidestep tariff code 9958 by electronically transmitting the main editorial content from the United States to a printer in Canada instead of physically importing the split run edition into Canada. Domestic ads were substituted for foreign ads and some original content was added to the existing editorial content. Thus, Sports Illustrated Canada demonstrated that the tariff code was no longer completely effective in dealing with split runs.

This new development underscored the need to update the legislative measures in place to support this vital sector of our cultural industry. It has been asserted that Investment Canada Act guidelines announced in July 1993 effectively foreclosed the possibility of any further split runs in the Canadian market. These guidelines however, can only apply to businesses in Canada. As we have seen with Sports Illustrated Canada, the publisher does not need a place of business in Canada in order to publish split runs in our country. Hence, Bill C-103.

First, an amendment to the Excise Tax Act will impose an excise tax on split run editions of periodicals attributed in Canada.

Second, an amendment to section 19 of the Income Tax Act will add an anti-avoidance rule relating to the deductibility of advertising. This will ensure that newspapers and periodicals that purport to be Canadian are in fact Canadian owned and controlled.

These are measures that will level the playing field for the Canadian magazine industry. That is fair. It is our responsibility to ensure that the Canadian magazine industry can compete for ad dollars.

The task force on the Canadian magazine industry was set up because the Sports Illustrated Canada case had demonstrated that the existing legislation could be circumvented. And I would like to clarify an important point here.

The problem does not rest with the general idea of publishing a sports magazine in Canada. It has to do with advertising revenues. The fact that a split run edition of Sports Illustrated Canada was sold in our newsstands shows that split run editions can enter the Canadian advertising market in spite of the existing legislation.

The task force set about its task in April 1993. Its mandate was to find sound and practical ways to ensure that the federal policy of assistance to the Canadian magazine industry would remain effective.

Task force members had an extensive knowledge of and experience in the Canadian magazine industry. There were members from every region of the country, including advisors working for the advertising industry or the Consumers' Association of Canada, representatives of the Canadian magazine industry and international trade experts.

This group of highly competent individuals carried out their task superbly. Not only did they provide us with an in-depth and up-to-date analysis of the Canadian magazine industry, but they also demonstrated the need to update existing legislative instruments governing the Canadian magazine industry.

We have relied on the advice of the task force because it examined closely all possible options. For example, the task force concluded that split runs could lead to a possible loss of 40 per cent of the industry's advertising revenue. That is $200 million annually.

Fiscal concerns ruled out establishing an industrial support program of such magnitude. The proposed tax is the most reasonable and practical structural measure. At 80 per cent, the tax can effectively achieve its objective of encouraging original content.

The task force concluded that the adoption of an excise tax measure that encourages ad revenues to flow to periodicals containing original editorial content in magazines would be the best way to assist Canada's magazine industry in a manner consistent with our trade obligations. By promoting original content, the tax will also ensure that all publishers are competing on a more even footing for Canadian advertising revenue.

A number of questions and concerns have been raised during the debate on Bill C-103. I would like to take this opportunity to address some of them.

It has been suggested that Canadian magazine publishers should take advantage of the opportunities provided by the free trade agreement and sell into the United States. American popular culture is part of the every day life of Canadians and so the editorial content of American magazines is generally of interest to Canadians. The reverse is not true. Canadian popular culture and Canadian issues are not part of the every day life of Americans.

To succeed in the United States, Canadian magazines would have to change their editorial content to such an extent they would no longer be Canadian magazines.

The question has been raised whether the proposed excise tax is a valid use of the federal taxation power. Let me assure the House that Bill C-103 is a valid exercise of the federal taxation power. The measure is of general application, since it will apply to any split run

edition distributed in Canada. Tax measures are not always solely for the purpose of raising revenue. Tax measures may also be used for other economic and social objectives.

Examples are the tax treatments of RRSP contributions and the child tax benefits.

Finally, to those who criticize such a tax because of its discriminatory nature, I say that this tax measure would apply to any split run edition, whether produced by a Canadian publisher or a foreign one.

With Bill C-103, the government's objective is not to limit access to foreign magazines, but to preserve a market in which Canadian publications can do well in our country and continue to be sold alongside foreign magazines.

The federal policy of supporting the Canadian magazine industry has been in place for a long time and remains unchanged. In fact, Bill C-103 reinforces that policy by adapting it to the new reality. This legislation will enable the industry to meet the challenges created by technological changes, such as those which have resulted in the split run edition phenomenon in Canada.

An open and stable structure for transborder exchanges is one of the greatest assets for our country. In a huge and diversified world market, with globalization increasingly prevalent, our culture allows us to be different from the other countries. As a government, the challenge is, as always, to maintain efficient policies and policy instruments that will promote cultural development. We must also seek to achieve a balance between the sometimes competing interests of our foreign trade, on the one hand, and the preservation of our cultural identity, on the other.

Bill C-103 meets those important objectives. Canadians value who they are as a people and as a country. They want and deserve access to cultural products that mirror the Canadian experience and outlook, to give Canadians what they want and deserve, means ensuring that our cultural industries remain healthy.

It is not enough to say, for example, that the circulation of the top Canadian magazines has increased while the circulation of the top U.S. magazines in Canada has decreased. The reality is that Canada's top magazines are up against the combined force of the much larger number of American magazines in circulation.

In conclusion, the 1970s and the 1980s saw an unprecedented explosion of cultural activity which produced a broad range of Canadian artistic products. During this time Canadians continued to define themselves and their values in a uniquely Canadian way.

The federal government has taken several measures to increase the share of the internal market held by Canadian cultural products, and to improve the ability of Canadian artists and cultural industries to create and market their products in our country. In the nineties, the Canadian cultural policy expanded, so as to include many new components. This complexity is the result of market globalization, as well as the extraordinary development of our artistic and cultural activities.

The main objective of our cultural policy still is to make sure that Canadians have access to Canadian products in order for them to share common values and symbols and continue to develop a cultural identity fitting their image.

Bill C-103 is an extension of our cultural policy. Even if the challenges are many, our track record shows that we can not only meet them but do an excellent job of it.

I will conclude with a quote from the report of the task force on the Canadian magazine industry. "Magazines help foster in Canadians a sense of ourselves. They enable us to see ourselves as no others see us. They also enable us to view the rest of the world from a Canadian standpoint. They are the thread which binds together the fibres of our nation".

I urge my colleagues to support Bill C-103 at third reading.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating, at third reading, Bill C-103, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act. On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I rise today to reiterate our support of this bill, which is basically aimed at putting an end to the distribution of split run editions in Canada and at strengthening the provision granting tax deductions to Canadian companies advertising in Canadian newspapers and magazines.

For the benefit of our listeners, I should add that a split run edition is an edition in which more than 20 per cent of the editorial content is of foreign origin.

It is important to note that this bill was made necessary by the government's lack of action to take the required steps to ban split run editions in Canada.

In 1993, Time Warner advised the Canadian government that it intended to distribute a split run edition of Sports Illustrated in Canada. As I said in my September 25 speech, instead of acting, the government chose to appoint a task force to study the issue. Sports Illustrated went ahead with its plan unhindered and with the full knowledge of the government.

Time Warner simply decided to electronically send the editorial content of its American magazine to Canada. It then sold advertisement to Canadian companies, and printed and distributed its magazine in Canada. Therefore, dumping advertising was possible for Sports Illustrated because its domestic market already covered its production costs. It could sell ads much cheaper and undermine the magazine industry in Quebec and Canada.

However, and I want to be clear on this point, that measure is not aimed only at Sports Illustrated . In fact, it became necessary because Sports Illustrated was the first magazine to circumvent the intent of the Canadian law. I know, and it was said repeatedly at the finance committee, that other businesses are only waiting for a slight bending on the part of the Canadian legislators to do exactly what Sports Illustrated did, that is transfer some editorial content to Canada and practice advertisement dumping.

I would also like to remind you that this bill was requested by representatives of the magazine industry in Quebec and Canada mainly for two reasons: first, because the industry could not have grown without the proper protection measures and second, because there is no financial security in that sector of the cultural industry.

For example, at the finance committee, Mr. Jean Paré, editor of L'actualité and representative of the Association québécoise des éditeurs de magazines, when speaking about the impact of the measures implemented by Canada to protect the Canadian magazine industry, told the committee that most of these magazines would not exist without the measures that successive federal governments have implemented over the last 30 years to level the playing field for Canadian businesses in the international market and ensure fair competition.

"The proof of our argument is that, before this legislation was adopted, our industry was nonexistent. The magazine I represent will be just 20 years old in a few months. When it was started up, only three of the 57 periodicals I represent today were in existence. The combined annual circulation of those in existence at that time was a mere six million copies. Today, our 57 members have a total of 80 million annual circulation; with the nonmembers added in, the figure is 138 million. The legislation adopted 25 years ago triggered investment in these businesses. The magazine industry in English Canada has followed almost the same path."

In his presentation to the Finance Committee, Mr. Paré indicated that, at first sight, one might think that these figures indicate that the magazine sector is a healthy one, but this is not the case. In fact, his statement to the Committee confirmed the conclusions of the task force on the Canadian periodical industry. Mr. Paré said:

"One might think that this is a robust and flourishing sector of the communications industry. Not in the least. Nine out of ten of these magazines are not cost-effective and are in existence solely because the publisher has a few profitable titles. This minority of profitable magazines, moreover, has to settle for profits that, on the average, barely exceed 10 per cent, far from what is considered a minimum in the US. Between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of these magazines' revenues come from advertising and a 10 per cent cut in advertising would probably wipe out the entire Canadian magazine industry". Sports Illustrated also testified before the Finance Committee. During its presentation, the company stated that Bill C-103 was unfair because it specifically targeted Sports Illustrated .

In fact, it is true that the bill calls for imposition of an 80 per cent excise tax on the advertising revenues of split run magazines, and that this measure must be applied to Sports Illustrated . The bill states that this measure does not apply to those split run periodicals which were already published and distributed in Canada as at March 26, 1993, and Sports Illustrated began its Canadian distribution on April 1, 1993.

Unlike what Time Warner, the publishers of Sports Illustrated , would have us believe, this measure is not solely aimed at its magazine. In his presentation to the finance committee, Mr. Paré described as follows the competition Quebec magazines might face if Bill C-103 were not passed by this House, and I quote:

"The publishing giants are not all American. They do not publish in English alone. The competition comes from German, French and British companies as well. These gigantic concerns, which may own hundreds of different magazines, the smallest with a circulation that sometimes exceeds that of the biggest Canadian magazines, are increasingly publishing in all languages in compact editions with adapted content, in order to skim off advertising revenue in as many markets as possible. These international publishers are now discovering Canada".

So Bill C-103 is not exclusively aimed at Sports Illustrated , as Time Warner would have us believe, but also at all the other magazine publishers who are waiting to see what will happen to this attempt by an American magazine to enter the Canadian market.

In its presentation to the finance committee, Sports Illustrated insisted that it participated in Canadian life, first by printing stories on Canadian teams and athletes like the Toronto Blue Jays and Elvis Stojko, and second, by creating jobs in Canada. In this respect the magazine's representatives stated, and I quote:

"-the company saw this as an opportunity to create jobs for Canadians in printing and distribution, and assignment opportunities for Canadian journalists and sports photographers".

According to our information, however, Canadian content in Sports Illustrated is minimal. Furthermore, it seems that the stories in Sports Illustrated that feature Canadian athletes would have been included in any event in the U.S. version of the magazine. Elvis Stojko may be a Canadian, but he also won the gold for figure skating, which makes him an international star, so it is not surprising he would be featured in Sports Illustrated . In fact, it would be surprising if Sports Illustrated did not have a story on Elvis Stojko.

As for job creation, I am told that the contribution of Sports Illustrated in this area is rather meagre. With both versions of Sports Illustrated being produced entirely in the New York, Canada's editorial contribution was to all intents and purposes nil. As to the job of printing, one printer estimates it takes a maximum of nine hours press time to print an issue of Sports Illustrated . We really have to ask ourselves just how much Sports Illustrated contributes to Canadian culture and employment.

On the other hand, Sports Illustrated clearly creams off the advertising market by selling its advertising space at cut prices. In its brief to the Standing Committee on Finance, the magazine announced its intention to change from a monthly format to a weekly one, an announcement that will hardly be reassuring for the Canadian industry, if the government does not act diligently.

This legislative measure is important for the magazine industry. I would, however, like to take this opportunity today to remind the government that it must also implement the other measures put forward by the task force on the magazine industry.

They are: first, freeze the funds set aside for the postal subsidy program at their 1995 level and second, remove the GST from all reading materials. The Liberal Party of Canada made clear and formal commitments in this regard. It passed a resolution to the effect that a Liberal government would reaffirm the historical principle of not taxing the publishing industry and would remove the goods and services tax, the GST, from all reading materials. We are still waiting for these promises to take effect.

Third, the Government of Canada should be obliged and the provincial governments encouraged to place advertising messages to the people of Canada in Canadian magazines only. Fourth, the Investment Canada Act should be amended to ensure that the Department of Canadian Heritage vets all measures approved by Investment Canada concerning periodicals and magazines.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-103.

The real question governments have to ask themselves when they are creating legislation that deals with issues like cultural trade policy is who is the real guardian of cultural trade or culture in Canada. We have to ask ourselves who is the real protector of consumers. Is it the government or is it Canadians themselves? Those are the critical issues.

I will not talk today about the technical aspects of this piece of legislation. We have done that in committee and over the last several days in other speeches. I will not get into that, but I want to talk a lot about the principle that surrounds who determines what culture is, which culture is worth protecting and why culture should be protected at all. That is the critical issue underlying the debate today. We are having a technical debate about this piece of legislation but it goes deeper than that. It goes right down to who is the guardian of culture in Canada. We can even extend that and say that it applies to the debate we have had on what is going on in Quebec, the referendum campaign, and who makes determinations about who knows best what is culture and that kind of thing.

I will talk about that matter over the course of my speech from a couple of different perspectives. I will to talk about it from the cultural perspective and from the economic perspective. Again the question is: Who knows better what is best for the ordinary consumer of cultural and the protection of culture and who knows best for the ordinary consumer, the ordinary person who pays taxes? I would argue in both cases that ideally it is individuals themselves and failing that it is lower levels of government.

First I will talk about the economic issues. The minister spoke at great length about how it was important to protect the magazine industry in Canada and that we needed the legislation to do it. What about all the other people affected by the legislation? It is not just the magazine industry that has a stake in it. Certainly advertisers use magazines as a vehicle to get their message out to the consumers. What effect will the legislation have on them?

I will give an example of how the legislation harms the ordinary advertiser and why that is a problem. A business somewhere in Ontario is selling computers and using Sports Illustrated to get its message out because it had the perfect demographic and the right audience. All of a sudden it will be denied that vehicle. However its competitor, IBM out of the U.S., will not be denied that vehicle. It will be able to use SI's North American circulation to deliver that message against me. In doing that it will have an unfair competitive advantage.

It is not the fault of the business in Ontario that is trying to sell computers. It is the fault of the government that is denying Sports Illustrated the chance to come into Canada and sell advertising to businesses like that. These products have a value to the people who use them. That is why they spend money on them.

We are denying that business a chance to use that vehicle to capture its own market. We may have a situation where IBM is coming in and is dominant in Canada because it has access to very cheap advertising that the business from somewhere in Ontario does not have. We are discriminating against the advertisers, the businesses that are employers of people and pay taxes to the Government of Canada. We denying them that chance. That is one reason the legislation is wrong.

The hon. minister talked about the fact that there are many Canadian magazines and people have access to them. What about the magazines we do not have access to because of the legislation? We do not know which ones they are. One of the theories of economics is that we never see the sometimes unintended, invisible results of economic policies.

What about those who cannot afford the subscription rates? What about those magazines? What about the ones that use the advertising revenue to get a wider distribution so they can charge more for their advertising? We will never hear about those magazines. They will never come here because they cannot support their subscription rates with more advertising rates. We are denied access to those. We will never know what we are missing because we will never see those magazines.

The same argument goes to the price that we pay for the ones that get here.

It is well known that prices are much higher in Canada for American or foreign magazines than they would be in their country of origin. I would argue that the reason for that is because the subscription price cannot be underwitten by the advertising revenues. So we again have a situation in which the consumers are taking it in the ear so that we can protect a certain privileged class, a group of people who publish magazines in this country and are lucky enough to enjoy the protection of the Canadian government.

In all these ways, consumers and advertisers are paying a high price for this government's policy. I point out again that in doing that we are denying people the chance to take their disposable income and spend it in other areas and cause the economy to grow and create jobs, the multiplier effect, et cetera. That is precisely how it works when there is free trade.

Before I talk about free trade in general I want to talk for a moment about the idea of an 80 per cent tax and about the principles the Canadian magazine industry has fought this issue on. To find out where those principles come from I think we have to go back to an earlier debate, to the debate about the GST.

There was an enlightening article in the Montreal Gazette on Monday, October 30, which I would like to quote. I think it puts the argument of the Canadian magazine industry into perspective and helps us to understand where they are coming from. This is from an article by William Watson, economic affairs editor of the Montreal Gazette :

Those who support the law, i.e., the Canadian magazine industry, argue the Americans have an unfair advantage. Their U.S. stories have already been written and therefore cost the split run virtually nothing. By contrast, editorial content in all Canadian magazines is all new for the Canadian market, so the playing field is uneven.

Well, the playing field for bananas and oranges is uneven too: tropical countries produce them much more cheaply than we do, but we do not insist Canadian fruit lovers buy Canadian-made oranges and bananas. If Canadian readers prefer cheaper U.S. editorial content to more expensive Canadian editorial content, why should Ottawa interfere with their choice?

When the GST was first being debated, the Canadian publishing industry ran an ad campaign, the gist of which was that other countries used to burn books, we just tax them. But now the very same industry is pushing an 80 per cent tax on one form of reading material.

Burning books is OK, I guess, so long as the books are American.

I think a very good argument is made in this article against the argument the Canadian magazine industry was using. They also make a very cogent argument for individual Canadians to be the protectors of culture. They are saying that individual Canadians should be the guardians of culture in this country.

It is the old cliché that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While the Government of Canada may think something is not very good editorial comment or content and it may somehow be un-Canadian, other people may appreciate it. It enriches their lives, as reading always does. They find it fulfilling. That is why they read it.

By denying some of these magazines a chance to earn revenue by picking up advertisers in this country, we are in some cases denying them the chance to actually send their magazines into this country. I think this article absolutely explodes the argument of the Canadian magazine publishing industry, going back to the GST debate, about the GST being a form of book burning then, but when there is an 80 per cent tax on Sports Illustrated it is somehow different.

I really do think this argument is all about who should be the real guardians of culture in this country. I could go on about that in more detail, but I want to get on to the whole idea of free trade and something I talked about yesterday. It makes the point and so I will raise it again.

I remember from the free trade debate in 1988 all the articles and various newspaper, video, and TV clips that we saw about the effect free trade was going to have on the wine industry in Canada. I bet a lot of people remember that. I remember how people said it was going to devastate grape growers and the wine industry in Canada. There were all kinds of protests. We saw them in the Okanagan and also in southern Ontario.

At the end of the day, completely the opposite was the case. Not only did the wine industry thrive, it is now acknowledged around the world as one of the finest wine industries in the world. We have won all kinds of rewards as a result of the competition free trade brought in, which forced wine growers to become efficient and among the best in the world.

The same happens in every sector when we allow it to happen. It gets back to this whole argument about who decides what is right for the country. Should it be the government or vested interests? Should it be particular interests, which of course will never turn down protection from the government? They will in fact invite it. However, at the end of the day, what is best for consumers? Consumers end up with a cheaper product. They end up with more selection. They end up with the highest quality. Should that not be the standard we strive for? I think that is exactly what we get when we have free trade, even in the cultural industries.

Again I say that Canadians themselves should be the guardians and protectors of their own culture. They are more than capable of doing that. They are very sophisticated people. They can make those decisions for themselves. I want to point to some examples where I think the cultural industry is doing extremely well, where it does compete in the world extremely well.

Before I do that I want to touch on an issue the minister raised. He talked about general interest magazines being of interest to Canadians when they come from the United States but not necessarily the other way around. In other words, Americans may not be very interested in general interest magazines that come from Canada. I do not really disagree with that; I think that is probably true. We could make some arguments that if there are retired Canadian people down in the States there may be some interest in these general interest magazines. That is probably true, but that is really not the point.

I take the minister's point. However, what about all the specialty magazines? What about, for instance, a golf magazine? Why does a golf magazine have to come from the United States? Why cannot golf magazines come from Canada and be exported into the United States? For crying out loud, there is no difference in the game from one country to the other. In fact we have Canadian golfers on the professional golf tour. Why can it not work that way?

We had a witness before us who I guess was representing the interests of the Canadian magazine industry, but that person acknowledged that their magazine has about 30 per cent of their circulation into the United States. Obviously that is not something they would want to lose. It helps them to make a profit and strengthens their industry.

I would argue that if we want to strengthen the industries then we cannot rely on the tiny population, relatively speaking, that Canada has compared to the United States or the rest of the world. To further make the point, when we had a member of the Quebec magazine publishing industry before us he talked about the threat Quebec magazines faced if split run publishing was allowed in Canada. He talked about the possibility of all these magazines from other countries in the world coming in. He was not so worried about the U.S., of course, because it did not publish that often in French, but the big competitor was France. He talked specifically about France and actually Germany. He also talked about the Swedes, the Swiss, the Belgians being a threat. That struck me as very odd, because here are tiny countries, smaller in some cases than Canada, and they are a threat to Canada with their publishing industry. That struck me as extremely odd.

If you think about it, what they have realized and what they are doing is saying they cannot survive, probably the French juggernaut as well, by remaining insular, by looking inward. They have to take their product and market it to the rest of the world. They were trying to do that in Quebec and no doubt in other places around the world. That is how they were not only surviving but thriving.

To me that makes eminent sense. If you have a small market, the best way to turn the tables on the guys who are using the economy of scale on you is to turn around and use it back on them, to use your editorial comment and mass produce it to get into other countries around the world. In specialty magazines that can be done. We are seeing it to some degree through Canadian magazines already in the United States, but there is certainly a tremendous market to keep doing it or there is a tremendous market there and tremendous potential to keep expanding.

If we put impediments in place that prevent us from doing that, like the clause in the split run bill, Bill C-103, which does not allow Canadian magazines-this is unbelievable-that have a circulation in the United States that is less than it is in Canada to send back the editorial content via split run to Canada, then we are putting up an impediment that prevents our magazine industry from becoming bigger and from going out into these other countries and really making it more viable over the long run. I do not understand why in the world we are doing that.

We had people before the committee and one of the magazines doing that is Harrowsmith , a Canadian magazine that has a circulation in the United States. It is publishing out of New York and sending stuff back by split run to Canada and using the same content, but it is a Canadian magazine. Those people voluntarily said that if this is to be an argument used against this legislation, they will quit doing split run because at the end of the day it is in their best interest. That is not an argument, in my judgment. It is fine for them to say that; they are established down there now. But what about the guys who want to go down there and get established by having, for instance, a specialty magazine that appeals to Canadians and to Americans and to anybody who speaks the English language? Why are we standing in the way of that? That is the way to make our industry viable.

From what I have seen in the book publishing industry, we have some of the best writers in the world. We can produce editorial content that is better than anybody else's in the world. We have proven that before. You look at the book publishing industry and at how widely read Canadian books are around the world and you know we are producers of great writers. We can do that. The same argument applies when we are talking about French writers. We could produce some of the best editorial content in the world, but we are being denied the right to do that, partially through this split run clause in the legislation.

It is more than that. It is the attitude. We are saying do not let the Americans in and we will not go in there. It is kind of a saw-off. It is crazy when we have so much to share with the rest of the world, the best artists and writers and creators of all kinds in this country. It is absolutely crazy that we are doing that.

Yesterday I mentioned this, but I will bring up again the Canadian Association of Broadcasters convention I attended on the weekend. The minister was there as well and spoke to the convention. What I want to talk about is how Canadian broadcasters have really gone out and made a success of themselves around the world because they have not been afraid to use the economies of scale, taking Canadian product and using it across the world.

One of the best examples of this is CanWest Global of Winnipeg which is huge in New Zealand and in Australia. Another very good example is Power Corp. which is now very big in Europe. I understand it is the biggest broadcaster in Europe and is doing extremely well. Another example is Electrohome Ltd. and there are others.

These companies take the programming they produce here and to take full advantage of the economies of scale they have marketed around the world. They have done extremely well. It means jobs for Canadian film makers, jobs for Canadian actors, jobs for Canadian screenwriters. Already we have the beginnings of a cultural industry which is doing extremely well in so far as it is allowed to compete freely in the world.

We should not be looking inward. I go back to what I started with, the real guardians of Canadian culture cannot be the government. It cannot make those determinations. There are too many different opinions out there. The real guardians of Canadian culture have to be individual people. People are very intelligent. They can make these determinations. They do not need the government dragging them around by the nose telling them that this is worthy of protection. That is crazy. We are too grown up for that.

Another issue needs to be raised and that is the whole issue of what may happen if we become too protectionist of our markets. It was not very long ago-the minister was involved in this-that we ran into precisely that type of problem when we decided to kick CMT out of Canada. CMT was Country Music Television, a video network, which had been in Canada for several years. Then a Canadian service came on and CMT was thrown out. It caused a rift between us and the Americans.

We are an exporting country. I hate to see that market close down for Canadian producers of culture because we make so much money from it. It enables those people to survive. What we saw in the CMT incident was the possibility that we were going to have the market closed off to us for our cultural exports. That is extremely dangerous. A good example of its importance is to look at how fast the private sector cultural industries have grown in the last few years.

As the subsidies from government diminish-the minister will certainly acknowledge they have diminished over the years-the private sector cultural industries have boomed. First, they need neither cultural protection nor subsidization. Second, they have been successful and are continuing to be successful at exporting their products to the United States and other countries around the world which has certainly meant substantial growth in that sector. Returns were around $16 billion in 1993 and were up to $22 billion in 1994, about 3.7 per cent of the GDP. This sector is actually growing very quickly which I believe bodes well. I will discuss this in more detail shortly.

Protectionism is a very dangerous route to go if we depend on other markets to make our cultural industries profitable. If they are closed down we are in big trouble.

I want to talk for a moment about what I see as the way to make cultural industries prosper and really do well in this country. I touched on the fact that private sector cultural industries are growing like crazy due to a couple of reasons. One of the reasons is that as the population ages people are spending more of their money on cultural products like movies, going to the theatre, books, magazines and so on. In a speech in the House not too long ago, the minister pointed out that as disposable income has increased over the years we have seen the Canadian magazine

industry do extremely well. Having more disposable income is the real key.

That brings us back to the whole debate about the deficit, the debt and taxes. I hate to mention it again. I mention it every time I speak but it is a huge cloud that hangs over our heads. The debt in this country is $560 billion. Yesterday we found out that 34 cents, or one-third, of every tax dollar goes toward interest on the debt. That is an unbelievable amount of money.

Can members imagine if we did not have to pay that, if we could keep it in our pockets, how much more people could purchase? Cultural industries would absolutely boom. We would not even be having this discussion about protecting the nation's cultural industries. They would absolutely explode.

In my judgment, we should not be wasting all this bureaucracy and people's valuable time to come up with more regulation and more protection. What we should be doing is beating down the debt, beating down the deficit, getting to a point where we can keep more money in our pockets. Canadians will go out and support magazines, not because they are Canadian but because they speak to us about things we are interested in.

As I said in committee, as long as politicians are wasting money in Ottawa and as long as there is crime in the streets, people are going to want to know what is going on in Ottawa, in their government and in their country.

The best way to do that is to find out from the people who publish Canadian magazines. Canadian magazines already have a huge head start. They already have the history, and the people running them who understand the country. That is a huge advantage over anything that comes in from outside the country.

If they have disposable income, Canadians will make those decisions themselves. Those people are the true protectors of Canadian culture. They will make those decisions for themselves.

Canadians over the years have demonstrated time and time again, better than government, that they can make decisions about important issues far better than politicians in Ottawa can, far better than the bureaucrats can, far better even than the provincial governments and even municipal governments can. I argue that those two levels of government make better decisions than the federal government. Ultimately people have displayed that they are more than mature enough to make excellent decisions on behalf of themselves, their communities and their families.

What this whole debate has been about, if one just sort of looks past all the technical issues and the details, is who should decide what is best for me. Should it be the government or should it be me? My colleagues and I would argue and a whole bunch of Canadians would argue that they should make the decision for themselves. Let us get away from the idea that the government knows best because people do not buy into that any more. Let us get away from the idea that one man or a cabinet can decide for 30 million people and all the different groups that make up those 30 million what is culture, what is art.

It is impossible. It is crazy. We have a chance to roll that tide back by voting against this legislation. I encourage all members to take a close look at the principles behind this legislation and to ask themselves who the guardians should be of Canadian culture. Should it be the Government of Canada, bureaucracies or should it be people themselves?

At the end of the day in their heart of hearts, they will admit that the people are more than capable of making those decisions.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring coherence to this debate and to speak to Bill C-103. Bill C-103 will play a major role in maintaining a vibrant and flourishing Canadian magazine industry. I want to use my time to present a broader perspective of the government's ongoing commitment to this industry.

This bill should be understood in the context of a long-established tradition of government support to the Canadian magazine industry as well as the industry's contribution to Canada's economy. More important, in a country where natural geography makes communication difficult, magazines play a key unifying role.

Canadian periodicals are an essential medium of cultural expression for Canadians. They serve as channels for conveying Canadian ideas, information and values. They are an integral part of the process whereby Canadians define themselves as a nation.

Beyond the direct social and cultural impact of the Canadian magazine industry, there are sizeable indirect effects which contribute to the smooth functioning of the Canadian economy.

Unfortunately Canadian magazines are confronted with a series of unique challenges: massive penetration of the Canadian market by imported magazines; the relatively small size of the Canadian population and its dispersion over vast territory; the openness of Canadians to foreign cultural products; the effect of the cover prices of imported magazines on the Canadian price structure; and the impact of overflow advertising on the potential advertising market in Canada.

Even if the magazine industry has flourished culturally with over 1,300 titles, its financial position is fragile with overall pre-tax profits of less than 6 per cent of revenues of $795 million in 1993-94.

The Canadian government has supported the domestic magazine industry and will continue to do so for many reasons. The principal reason is the importance that Canadians place on having a means of expressing their unique identity and the difficult and challenging environment the Canadian magazine industry faces.

The need for structural measures of support for the Canadian magazine industry has long been recognized by successive Canadian governments. Over the years a number of policy and program instruments have been designed and put into place to help ensure the development of the Canadian magazine industry while not restricting the sale of imported periodicals in Canada.

My friends across the way who speak to this issue are somehow misguided. We are doing much collectively to provide a dynamic and original culture which nurtures our national identity. Questions such as, what is culture, or do we have a single overarching cultural policy, may be good subjects for discussion. The truth is that cultural challenges in Canada have always been addressed by specific cultural policies put together by governments.

If we look at cultural policy goals pursued by consecutive or successive Canadian governments over more than half a century, their consistency is remarkable. Specific policy objectives developed by a succession of governments clearly reflected the reality of an original Canadian culture. Uppermost among these objectives is Canadian ownership and control of cultural enterprises, a made in Canada broadcasting system, the protection of sovereignty in the arts, cultural expression, the creation of an environment enabling cultural industries to sustain themselves and the recognition on the world stage of Canada's artistic and cultural accomplishments. Our global cultural policy was designed to promote the development of a diverse yet distinctive Canadian culture fostering mutual understanding, identity and quality of life.

Successive governments have recognized that Canada with its two official languages benefits from easy access to two of the greatest cultures in the world. The presence of our First Nations peoples and the diverse origins of our population have been justifiably looked upon as a fertile source of inspiration.

Canadian governments have also understood the influence of the United States on Canada's culture and identity. On one hand the fabric of our society can be enriched by our direct access to American cultural products and means of expression. On the other hand, this same access can weaken our ability to create and express ourselves in a distinctly Canadian fashion in our own country.

Canadian governments could see the evidence that Canadians do want Canadian cultural products and that Canadians are prepared to pay a price for them. Canadians also accept that government has a role in striking the right balance between supports to Canadian cultural development and access to other cultures. In short, Canadian governments are involved in cultural policy because the public interest is at stake.

Perhaps more than anything else, Canadian culture is vulnerable. We said in the red book:

Culture is the very essence of national identity, the bedrock of national sovereignty and national pride-. At a time when globalization and the information and communications revolution are erasing national borders, Canada needs more than ever to commit itself to cultural development.

Canadian culture is also the substance and the reflection of who we are and what we form as a people. Our landscape is part of it; our tastes, our languages, our pastimes, the way we view the world, these all enter in. Our culture and our life as a nation are intertwined. As the reflection of who we are, our cultural expression becomes the aggregate of our voices and creative energies. For those reasons alone, Canada's cultural development and the quality of its cultural expression are worthy of government's attention.

My Reform friend said governments should stay out. But we know that Canadians are enthusiastic about the state of the arts in Canada and the involvement of all governments in that state of the arts. The quality and abundance of creative work and performance have never been higher. I think my friend noted that. Strength and certainty are now evident in the work of our writers, our artists, our performers. We celebrate their achievements as well as their commitment, a commitment after all to ourselves.

As a society we wish to reward our artists. They need not only our interest and attention, but also material conditions within which they can engage in their work and their art. In so doing, they can offer all of us a better chance to reach our own potential as a people and as individuals. I have many friends in the arts world and I know of individuals who are struggling to keep body and soul together and bread on the table.

Culture is a complex whole. It includes the knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, laws, customs and all other capabilities and habits acquired by the members of a particular society. Like other fundamental concepts, culture can only be understood by a familiarity with the realities it summarizes. It may be difficult to define American, French or Canadian culture, but the artistic products of those cultures, their books, magazines and films for example, can readily reflect and inform the cultures of which they are products.

Canadians are avid consumers of cultural products. After the Dutch, we are the second highest per capita purchasers of records and tapes in the world. We are also among the world's great film and movie goers.

Canadian culture flourishes in our major cities. It thrives in every hamlet and draws strength from every region. It comes from passion, talent, commitment and hard work. The wonder of Canadian culture in all its diversity is its ability to expand our horizons as individuals and to bring us together as human beings and as a society. Our culture, our Canadian, diverse, original culture, is part of our identity and greatness. We must stand on guard for it. It is the soul of our country.

Our bookstores, our news stands, our record shops, cinemas and television screens testify to Canada's position as one of the greatest importers of cultural products in the world. We enjoy our access to other cultures. However, we repeatedly ask ourselves whether there should not be a more normal balance between Canadian perspectives and those from elsewhere. This is the crux of the bill.

Together, our arts and cultural industries contribute over $24 billion to the gross domestic product or 4 per cent of the GDP of the entire economy, and important for us, 660,000 jobs. This did not happen by accident. This did not happen, as our friend across the way would say, by letting the individuals do it. It was the result of a combination of the desire and determination of successive governments and the great talent which exists in our country.

The challenges facing the Canadian market for cultural content are growing increasingly complex every day. There can be little doubt that today's reality of fiscal restraint will continue to affect our future activities. Policy priorities change to take account of new challenges, world trends and windows of opportunity. The goals to be met by those priorities however should not change. The scene changes, the values do not.

This is important work, work which government has been doing successfully for years through such policy tools as public cultural institutions, support measures, and legislation and regulation. In fact, the development of legislative and regulatory measures has been particularly effective in promoting Canadian cultural sovereignty. Few measures have been more efficient than those dealing with Canadian content.

Canada has not been the only country to implement such legislative and regulatory measures. For example, specific restrictions are common for publishing, film and videos in countries like Argentina, Brazil, France, Mexico and Australia. Need I go on?

Venezuela has specific policies and requirements for newspapers and periodical publishing. In film and video, France, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Philippines, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland maintain varying degrees of restrictions on inward investment. Mexico maintains limitations in film and video, broadcasting and periodical publishing. Brazil has grouped television, radio and the print media as one of the strategic industries to which it applies the same foreign investment restrictions.

We cannot go by a rule which says the one with the deepest pockets wins. As a market, Canada is one-tenth the size of the United States. The cost of producing a film or television program is

the same in Canada as it is in the U.S. Our ability to recover those costs is one-tenth.

I must emphasize that it is never an issue of keeping other products out. That is not the intent of this bill. Canada is the most open country when it comes to enjoying the cultural products of other countries. The issue is ensuring the development and distribution of Canadian content and ensuring that Canadians know it is there and they have access to it.

The Canadian government has been consistent. Its magazine policy has not changed. I will say this for the information of the Reform members who spoke against this, with these amendments to the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, the federal government is modernizing its policy instruments. In this way, the entire range of government policy and program instruments can better achieve the overall objective of a vital and flourishing Canadian magazine industry.

Those in the industry are depending on those of us in this House to ensure that Bill C-103 gets swift passage.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion agreed to on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

Department Of Health Act

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

moved that Bill C-95, an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-95, a bill to create Canada's Department of Health.

I want to say a word about the referendum this week. Like many members of this House, I am pleased with the result, but I do not want to downplay the challenges that lie ahead of us. This government came into power with an agenda for change that it will

implement appropriately to improve efficiencies and to create better bottom up management that recognizes the regional differences and specific needs of this vast country of ours. We remain committed to change, for Quebec and for all of Canada.

Since taking office, we have embarked on reforms to make the country work better, to eliminate duplication and top heavy administration and to ensure that services are delivered by the level of government that is most appropriate and best able to do the job. Let me talk about some of these changes.

We have signed agreements with nine provinces to reduce federal-provincial duplications. We have signed agreements with all provinces to end internal trade barriers in Canada and to promote efficient movement of goods and services across the country.

In keeping with our commitment to forge partnerships with all levels of government and the private sector, an unprecedented team Canada trade mission with nine premiers and many municipal leaders went to China. The team brought home more than $8 billion in deals for Canadian businesses that benefited every province.

We have eliminated unnecessary boards and committees making government leaner. We have eliminated subsidies to businesses and other groups in order to make government relevant and less intrusive. We have turned over the management of many programs to local authorities, streamlining and removing duplication and inefficiencies. It is in keeping with this move toward efficiency and relevance that we introduced the legislation before us.

Bill C-95 is a milestone in the evolution of a health system that is the envy of countries around the world. Over more than two generations, Canadians from across this great country under the leadership of Liberal prime ministers and ministers of health have built Canada's health system with great care and courage, foresight and compassion. We are proud and honoured to carry the torch of their vision forward, unaltered, while at the same time responding to the need and the challenge for finding new ways to implement the goals.

The bill will change the name of the federal department to give it a more focused mandate. It will confirm and strengthen the raison d'être of the Department of Health, which is to promote and preserve the health of Canadians. It will reaffirm its mission of helping the people of Canada maintain and improve their health status. It will continue to fulfil these objectives through medicare and public health initiatives, through research and investigation, through education and awareness, and through the monitoring and investigation of food, drugs, devices and products that would compromise the safety of Canadians.

However the social assistance and income support programs of the government once contained within the Department of National Health and Welfare have been turned over to the Department of Human Resources Development, and for good reason. As we move into the 21st century issues such as poverty, unemployment and social welfare have become inextricably linked with the notion of empowerment through creation of opportunity via skills, training and education, all aimed at developing the human resource potential.

Bill C-95 addresses the need for a clear and proactive focus on Canada's primary resource, its people, and on ensuring that their quality of life and health status are balanced, enhanced and improved. It allows us to concentrate on the broader spectrum of issues that affect the health of Canadians today, the challenge and enticements to come to terms with and to explore the complex new discoveries, drugs and technologies that spring up with such dizzying rapidity in the world of biomedical science.

These innovations have on the one hand presented us with exciting new opportunities for prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease and alleviation of suffering and on the other hand raised conflicting issues of safety, cost effectiveness, ethics and evaluation of social values.

The act will allow our department to create a vision for the future and at the same time to renew and strengthen our commitment to co-operation, co-ordination and partnership with all Canadian jurisdictions, provinces, territories, organizations and communities. In keeping with this evolution, the bill brings about the change that is the promised mandate of the government.

There is more to renaming the Department of Health than a mere change of name. There is a clarification of focus and an opportunity to formulate a new vision of the future that will improve greatly the health status of Canadians and make innovations that will enhance and strengthen what is already one of the best national health care systems in the world.

This is no more clearly spelled out than in the portion of the act that declares the health aspects of social well-being are the responsibility of the Department of Health. We all know that social well-being is multifactoral in its linkages and that it concerns in an interlocking manner the policy makers of every government department and every minister. Social well-being is interrelated with the economy, with justice, with employment, with poverty or wealth, with cultural and spiritual issues, with gender and ethnicity, and with the environment. The new health definition is more than just the absence of disease. It has to do with the quality of the individual's life and ability to cope with disability.

In the case of Health Canada this responsibility, which has always been implicit in its mandate, is now being explicitly acknowledged. The context of the words in the bill make it clear that the department's scope to exercise this broad definition of health is confined to matters over which the health minister has jurisdiction. It obviously does not give the Minister of Health the mandate to infringe on other ministers' responsibilities. By using the specific words in the bill, Canada has declared its commitment to the definition of health used by the World Health Organization

which says that there is more to health than health care. It says that health means much more than the absence of disease.

Health is the complete state of physical, mental, spiritual and social well-being. This is what the new department aspires to for every Canadian. Its renewed commitment to a long and glorious tradition has inspired Liberal governments, politicians of every party and Canadian people over many years, indeed over many decades.

Many eminent Canadians have been intimately associated with the growth of Canada's health system: the hon. Judy LaMarsh, the hon. Paul Martin, Senior, Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, the hon. Marc Lalonde, the hon. Monique Bégin and the late hon. Tommy Douglas. I mention only a few. We can see how the vision of health has known no political boundaries in the past. Though members of the third party as we well know have tried to challenge it in the present, we can trace the evolution of the commitment to social well-being through the contributions of each of these people.

In particular it was foreshadowed just over 10 years ago when Parliament debated and unanimously passed the Canada Health Act under the direction of the hon. Monique Bégin, the federal Liberal Minister of Health at the time. This major milestone, the Canada Health Act, contained a preamble that called for an assault on the social, environmental and occupational causes of disease. The idea that shaped that statement was a growing awareness of the importance of nutrition, stress management, physical fitness, safety in the workplace and the environment generally. These concepts deal with health, not sickness. These are concepts the hon. Marc Lalonde, another federal Liberal Minister of Health, created and championed. This definition has since been taken up by many other countries of the world and is now considered indisputable fact.

These concepts of health deal with prevention and promotion, not only cure, as the strategy for achieving health. It is a strategy that speaks of long term planning, not only reactivity. It represents the real health care revolution in the country.

Inherent in Bill C-59 most emphatically the concentrated focus on health statement does not mean that our vision of the future of health is intrusive or limiting. Clause 12 of the bill like the act it replaces makes it clear that nothing in the act gives the Minister of Health or any Health Canada official authority to exercise any jurisdiction or control over any provincial health authority. As I have just related in detail, it certainly defines health in its newest and broadest terms.

The bill confirms and strengthens the national interest of the federal government in health and answers those who would Balkanize health care. We know that health care is primarily local in nature. People who become sick are generally treated close to home by their own medical practitioners. If necessary, they are taken to hospitals in or near their town or city. It is well accepted colloquially and constitutionally that the managerial and administrative aspects of Canada's health system fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces.

But Canada's intrinsic values, beliefs and ideals are not local in nature. They define who we are as a people and what we stand for. These values and beliefs are reflected in the principles of the Canada Health Act.

While the federal government's financial contributions to the provinces and territories subsidize a substantial share of the cost of health care, the role and contribution of the Government of Canada in the area of health extend well beyond its funding responsibilities.

The work of the Department of Health touches the life of every Canadian every day. It monitors the safety of the foods we eat, the medication we take, the consumer products we buy for our families. In effect it is the watchdog of consumer safety. Health Canada identifies the health risks we should avoid and undertakes the research programs that improve the health of children, women, seniors and all other segments of society. It is a machine of proactive care.

The protection aspects of health care begin long before health interventions for the sick. It extends more broadly than mere treatment of illness. It is in the national interest that systemic examination of disease trends and health risks be in a single accessible place where public health intelligence from within Canada and around the world can be assembled and evaluated and that there be a centre where population health strategies can develop and where national health status benchmarks can be set.

To this end the laboratory centre for disease control located in the department is dedicated to programs preventing, controlling and reducing the impact of chronic and communicable diseases in Canada.

There is a national interest in working with other countries to combat and control health threats that know no borders. The Government of Canada supports international collaboration against the common threat of disease. It is in the national interest that research into the causes and treatments of disease be carried out.

The federal government spends many hundreds of millions of dollars a year on health research. The results of research are available to all provinces, all hospitals and all doctors throughout Canada. The outcome of research benefits all Canadians. It saves the lives of all Canadians. Health Canada's role as co-ordinator, database gatherer and clearinghouse is clearly invaluable.

It is in the national interest that drugs and medical devices be evaluated to ensure that regardless of where they are purchased and used they are safe for public use and they do what the manufacturers claim they do. The Department of Health analyses pharmaceuticals that are submitted by manufacturers and certifies their effectiveness and safety. The Department of Health works to assure Canadians that their food supply is safe, nutritious and of high quality. It is in the national interest that the Department of Health does these things. It is also in the national interest that standards are set and enforced so Canadians can be ensured of comparable health care services no matter what province they reside in or visit.

It has been well documented by many surveys that Canadians want a national vision for health and social well-being. Poll after poll has found that the health care system is in first place as one of the things that binds Canadians together. They see it as a defining aspect of Canadian values.

The latest Canada Health monitor findings show that 89 per cent of Canadians support the principles of the Canada Health Act. The third party across the way that seeks to trample on those principles should get in touch with the people of Canada.

Health Canada has a clear role to play in public awareness and education on health issues as well as a responsibility to protect those who are disadvantaged. The government is proud of the measures it has taken on behalf of groups with special needs whose health status is more compromised such as First Nations persons, children, seniors and other disadvantaged groups. At the same time, because the health status of First Nations people requires concentrated ongoing efforts we have expanded and enhanced health programs for First Nations and Inuit people.

For instance, last year the Minister of Health announced the building healthy communities strategy. In consultation with First Nations and Inuit leaders we will implement the strategy to strengthen efforts in three critical areas: solvent abuse, mental health and home care nursing.

We are well aware that health programs designed and delivered within First Nations communities are often more successful than those delivered by outside agencies. I have proof of this not only from my own experience as a physician working with aboriginal communities to improve their health but more recently as I travelled with the Standing Committee on Health across Canada visiting native communities and seeing firsthand what worked and what did not work.

We are working with the First Nations to increase their control over their own resources. We have helped many bands to move through the transition that will eventually culminate in full control of management and administrative powers that will enable self-government.

It would take too much time to tell the House of all the initiatives now under way to empower Canadians who are least able to help themselves, those disadvantaged by need or by neglect. However with the indulgence of the House I will mention only a few. An example is our seniors. We currently support research into alternatives for care that promote independence and allow the elderly to stay in their homes, close to friends, family and familiar surrounding. We do this by funding groups that provide community programs for seniors. This is what we mean by health status encompassing quality of life objectives.

For our children Health Canada is a key player in a network of government programs designed to improve the life chances for children at risk. The clear understanding is that the future of children depends on critical inputs during the first years of life. The federal government administers a number of programs for Canadian children and their families to help improve access to the best opportunities for health and development. The department directly supports a wide range of strategic programs targeted at children at risk of abuse or injury, social or physical disease.

What about women? For too long, women have taken second place on the health agenda. Our government has taken dramatic steps to correct this grave inequity. We have given strong support to the Canadian breast cancer research initiative. We have introduced gender specific elements into health promotion programs such as Canada's drug strategy and the tobacco reduction demand strategy, working with community groups to ensure that women get help at the local level.

Statistics Canada showed that the prenatal death rate in this country climbed in 1993. As a physician, I know that good nutrition in pregnancy is a key factor in decreasing the rate of low birth weight babies, who are at highest risk for chronic disease and disability. Health Canada's prenatal nutrition program for low income and other at risk mothers was a red book response to this tragic occurrence. I am proud to say that this simple and effective program would benefit many at risk babies in the future.

The hon. members of the third party with tunnel vision may rest assured that spending on these health programs does not fly in the face of the debt reduction priority of this government. Each dollar that goes to prevent ill health saves tens and hundreds of dollars in health care and treatment costs.

I turn now to the specifics of the bill before the House. As I have said, essentially it renames the department to conform to its new singular focus on health. Hon. members will find that most of what is in the bill carries over from the previous legislation. There are a few new items included in order to clarify the mandate of the

department and to extend its abilities to discharge its mandate. I will deal with some of these very briefly.

The bill defines the minister's powers in clause 4 as the promotion and preservation of the physical, mental, and social well-being of the people of Canada. Hon. members will understand the meaning of social well-being in light of my earlier comments in the context of this bill. We are concerned solely with the health aspect of social well-being, because health is more than just health care. It involves the total environment in which the organism lives and develops, in which human babies are born, youth develops, and seniors find quality of life. Health is based in the social order of the community.

We speak then of the social well-being of Canadians in the same breath as we speak of their physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. Not only does this wording reflect the reality of human existence, it echoes the wording and usage of the World Health Organization of the United Nations.

A subclause of this section confirms the department's responsibility for the safety of consumer products and workplace equipment, which is a transfer from the former Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

By virtue of clause 5, Health Canada officials will gain the same powers to inspect possible disease carrying agents entering the country as they now have to enforce the Food and Drug Act.

Clause 6 authorizes the minister, under the supervision of Treasury Board, to recover the cost of services provided to business. I hasten to explain to the third party that for medically necessary care this does not apply to user fees and they should never confuse it. Members know that we remain unalterably opposed in this government to any user fees.

What we really refer to under cost recovery is the cost recovery of charges to businesses for the cost of government services that have commercial value, such as evaluation of drugs, devices, pesticides, et cetera, which we all agree taxpayers should not subsidize.

I would like to reassure hon. members and the Canadian public of one overriding truth, the clear mandate and mission of Health Canada. Our mission will continue to be to help the people of Canada maintain and improve their health. We will continue to enforce the Canada Health Act so that all Canadians will have universal access to a comprehensive range of medically necessary quality health services. Our objective as a Liberal government has historically been to ensure that the health care system remains accessible to Canadians when they need it.

In this vein, hon. members are aware that the Minister of Health has given the provinces until October 15 to disallow user charges for medically necessary services in private clinics or experience reductions in transfer payments. The message is clear and simple: we will do what is required to stop user charges in their tracks, to push them back wherever they have crept forward, and to prevent the development of a two tiered system of health care, a system which contradicts every one of the five principles of medicare, to which Canadians have stated full commitment.

We do not oppose the use of private clinics. They can be a creative, cost effective way to deliver services, and they can do so without contravening the Canada Health Act if they are set with clear, well defined criteria.

We are committed to consulting openly and thoroughly with our provincial colleagues. We have shown our commitment to working with them to resolve outstanding issues and renew their health care system-indeed as they must-in a way that preserves and respects the underlying principles and values of the Canada Health Act. However, the bottom line remains fixed: no Canadian will suffer financial hardship because of illness in this country. This principle has not changed since Emmett Hall's report and since Liberal Prime Minister Lester Pearson enacted medicare. It will not change in the future as long as there is a Liberal government in Canada.

We will continue our wide range of activities aimed at preventing disease and promoting health. We know this is the best investment in the health status of Canadians that we can possibly make.

We know that 60 per cent of disease is preventable. We know that early screening, public information and awareness, research, and healthy public policy can make a remarkable difference to the lives of Canadians, even in diseases where there is no known cure. So we have instituted a breast cancer information exchange. We have implemented strategies to reduce tobacco use, to counter family violence, and we have introduced a prenatal nutrition program to improve prospects for newborns at identifiable risk. We have announced an aboriginal health head start program to address the needs of aboriginal children living in urban centres and large northern communities. We have embraced the axiom that good health is the result of proper exercise and diet. My department provides guidelines on nutrition and financial support for physical fitness and active living.

Nobody wants to spend more money than is necessary on health. We want to get the maximum value from every dollar. The road to this objective passes through the prevention of illness and the promotion of health through the development and support of healthy communities.

Dr. Brock Chisholm, former deputy minister in Canada and first director general of the World Health Organization, once recast the age-old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Dr. Chisholm said "You can only cure retail, but you can prevent wholesale". We subscribe to that.

The new Department of Health will continue all the essential work that has helped Canada reach and maintain its place on top of the world rankings in health. However, as I said at the outset, we intend to do far more than maintain hallowed traditions. We intend to be a dynamic player in a world filled with new challenges and innovative and creative opportunities for health and health care.

We will be open to exciting visions of the future that take full account of the discontinuities and uncertainties of fast changing times. We look to the national forum on health to help develop this new vision for Canada's health system in the 21st century. We believe the forum is an appropriate vehicle, one that respects the rights of Canadians to be consulted on this matter of primary importance. It brings expert opinion from many areas to bear. It promotes dialogue with all segments of the public. It respects the established and effective conference of federal-provincial health ministers. The personal involvement of the Prime Minister as its chair reflects the importance this government assigns to its deliberations.

The national forum on health, which will maintain a dialogue with Canadians, is a unique and important milestone in the evolution of Canada's health care system. It also makes good on a promise the Liberal Party made when it sought and received the support of Canadians in the last election, a promise to strengthen partnerships, to open doors to public input. The forum would bring in for the first time in a meaningful and practical way the third player on the health care team, the consumer.

I point out to hon. members that significant progress has been made on the health commitments of the red book. Consider the forum, aboriginal head start, prenatal nutrition, centres of excellence for women's health, and on and on. Health is everybody's business. It is an investment in the Canadian economy. Health is an economic resource. Healthy people work, play, and are active consumers.

Studies done by many economic think tanks have shown the loss to the economy through illness. So it is important to understand that Canada's financial commitment to health care provides considerable value for every dollar spent.

In 1972, when our health insurance system was completed, Canada and the United States were spending approximately the same level of gross domestic product on health, at 8.4 per cent of gross domestic product. Since then we have done a far better job of controlling spending. Last year Americans spent more than 14 per cent of GDP on health, with 35 million citizens still uninsured, while we spent about 9.7 per cent of gross domestic product on a universal, comprehensive system where every Canadian has full access, regardless of income level. This translates to $30 billion a year in savings on health compared with the U.S. spending levels.

What about outcomes? OECD and WHO statistics show that Canada ranks in the top three and sometimes is second in health outcomes, while the United States still ranks between 15 and 17. I say to the third party that more money does not mean better care.

Who gains from these savings? Canadian employers. Who has high overhead costs to insure their employees against basic health risks? Not Canadian businesses. We are among the big winners. In fact major American companies have admitted that this is one important reason to invest in Canada. Moreover, Canada's labour market is more flexible and more mobile because problems with health insurance do not deter workers from changing jobs.

This Canadian health dividend is not simply in the delivery of health care services. It is sometimes unfairly alleged that medicare is bureaucratic and eats up funds in administration and red tape. The truth is quite the opposite. Health care administration costs about $272 per person in Canada. In the United States it is about 250 per cent higher, at $615 U.S. per person.

Public administration, as one of the five principles of health care, works. We only spend about 5 per cent of our health care dollars on administration. The United States spends 25 per cent. It was once decided by the United States Department of General Accounting that if that 25 per cent spent on administration in the United States were put into health care services, the 35 million Americans who are not insured would be insured.

We are committed to managing effectively and prudently in difficult financial times. There are many management strategies in health care that are innovative, save dollars, and still ensure quality, such as evidence based care, appropriate acute care, community care, and assessment of technologies. But this all means working in close co-operation with provinces and territories. This government has taken great care to avoid duplication of programs and services. If the provinces can administer a program better, and in many cases they can, we let them do it. Our aim is to co-operate and be flexible with the provinces in ways that ensure there is no wasteful overlap. We consult widely within the field and among all Canadians before we act.

I have spoken about the record of the health department that has been its history and portends well for its future. It has been the instrument for promoting high quality health care and improved health status for Canadians at reasonable cost. It has earned and maintained an international reputation for its efforts on health promotion and disease prevention.

I am therefore proud to sponsor this bill to create Canada's new Department of Health. I urge all hon. members of the House to afford it swift passage through Parliament.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak for 40 minutes to Bill C-95, an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain acts.

In fact, the purpose of this bill is to shorten the name of the Department of Health and Welfare to Department of Health. Yet, in reading Bill C-95, we realize that some sections have been amended, repealed or added so that the government can, under the pretence of providing good government, give the Minister of Health the legitimate power to interfere once again in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. We are faced, once again, with this overwhelming desire to centralize everything.

Since I like setting the record straight, I will give you a short history lesson.

As the type of political system that would prevail in the future Canadian union was being defined in 1867, it was easy to see the emergence of two opposite views of federal-provincial relations. On one side, John Macdonald wanted a strong central government that could devolve certain powers to the provinces as it saw fit. On the other side, Cartier definitely favoured a highly decentralized confederation. In French dictionaries, confederation is defined as the union of several sovereign states.

We know only too well what this led to. Powers were indeed distributed between the two levels of government, so that each would have exclusive jurisdiction over their own areas of responsibility.

But things are never as clear cut as they seem with the federal government. The government kept in its hand what it considered as a trump card, which proved to be harmful to federal-provincial relations: the power to spend and to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada.

This way, the federal government could still do as it pleased in any provincial area of responsibility, without paying attention to the distribution of powers guaranteed by the constitution. And this was definitely planned and hoped for. This is confirmed by Alexander Galt, one of the fathers of confederation, who stated that the distribution of powers, as described in the British North American Act of 1867, did not provide the provinces with enough funding to properly look after the areas falling under their jurisdiction. This means that the very document that gave rise to a new Canadian union provided that the provinces would not have sufficient funding and that the federal government should step in to compensate the members of this union.

Unable to have a highly centralized federal system from day one, John Macdonald made sure that its power to encroach would enable it to intervene in any jurisdiction it pleased and to impose its views on the provinces, even with respect to exclusive provincial jurisdictions.

It may be difficult for some to recognize that this is what those who drafted the British North America Act had in mind. It may be difficult for them to believe that what they like to refer to, wrongly I must say, as the most decentralized system in the world, already provided, in its embryonic state, an increasing centralization of power in favour of Ottawa.

Yet, the comments made by Alexander Galt, whom I quoted earlier, leave no doubt as to those initial intentions, and nor do the remarks made by another architect of the Act of 1867, who said that, in the long run, the provinces would become nothing more than large municipalities under the control of the federal government, on which they would greatly depend. We were not there at the time to see what was going on, but these people were, and they even wrote about it.

This is how the structure in which we still live, unfortunately, was developed and set up. I made reference to our history at the very beginning of my speech to show that, to this day, and contrary to what many would like us to believe, nothing has changed. This centralizing vision which gives greater power to the federal government is not mentioned in the speeches of today's key players on the federal scene, but it is obvious in their actions. The best example is certainly the health sector in general, where the federal has been interfering constantly and increasingly for decades. Bill C-95, which is now before us, is evidence of that.

Section 92.16 of the Constitution Act gives provinces jurisdiction over health related issues on their territory, by generally providing for all matters of a purely local or private nature within a province. Moreover, sections 92.7, 92.13 and 92.16 of the same act also give the provinces jurisdiction over hospitals, the medical profession and practice, as well as health related laws in general, on their territory.

We can say that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction since it involves ownership and civil rights.

In the light of what I just said, it is obvious that health care is an area which should come under provincial rather than federal jurisdiction. However, the federal government has been interfering in this area, in various ways, for several years now.

The Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, the Medical Care Act and, more recently, the famous Canada Health Act, which combines both previous acts and crystallizes so-called national standards, show how the federal government deals with areas of shared jurisdiction. Its initiatives aimed at increasing the

federal presence in these areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction are being justified by its spending power, which creates problems not only in the health care area, but I will not have enough time to list the many disputes it has caused, others will do it for me, I am sure.

For my part, I will paint a picture showing what happens when a government is unwilling to admit that it cannot afford to do and decide everything on behalf of the provinces. This picture has as a backdrop the acute crisis the health care system is going through in Canada and Quebec.

The federal government's temptation or desire to interfere in the health care area is not new. In fact, right after the second world war the federal government took over all major fields of taxation to make sure it would receive almost all the taxes normally levied by the provinces.

At the end of the war, the government got a bright idea: instead of giving the taxing powers back to the provinces, it would redistribute the money through grants conditional on standards set by the federal government. That was an ingenious way to encroach even further upon areas not within the federal jurisdiction, at a time when the London Privy Council, the equivalent in those days of our Supreme Court, wanted to restrain the federal government's tendency to centralize. In the health area, the Established Programs Financing Act is a good example of what I said earlier: this government refuses to accept that it cannot do everything and be everywhere.

Created in 1977, the EPF program has kept the same structure ever since. However, the growth rate has not been as expected over the last ten years. That is what brought about the shortfall, as we call it, for the provinces and Quebec in the health area. In 1986, the federal government reduced the growth rate of transfers by 2 per cent. It was the beginning of a long series of payment cuts. In 1989, the indexing factor was again reduced by 1 per cent. In 1990, Bill C-69 froze transfers to the 1989-90 level for two years supposedly. In 1991, the government announced that the freeze would be maintained for three more years. During most of that blighted period for the health care system, the opposition cried its outrage. It said loud and clear that this process could only push the system to its own ruin.

But the same party, now in government, is weakening the system even further. Between 1977 and 1994, the federal contribution to health went from 45.9 per cent to 33.7 per cent, a drop of 10.6 per cent which Quebec and the provinces have had to absorb as best they could. Unfortunately, the mismanagement condemned not so long ago by the Minister of Labour and the Deputy Prime Minister seems to still be with us.

My predictions for 1997-98 are that the federal contribution will slide as low as 28.5 per cent of funding. Over the years, as Ottawa disengaged itself from health funding, Quebec alone was left $8 billion short. Eight billion dollars which the Government of

Quebec had to scramble to find elsewhere. To that figure can be added the projected cuts in the Canada social transfer of $308 million in 1995-96 and more than $587 million in 1997-98.

The leeway that was to be afforded by the Canada social transfer is in reality merely the opportunity for Quebec and the provinces to make their own choices as to where they would make the cuts to absorb this unilateral disengagement. This is how the present Liberal government sees decentralization. This is what it means by flexible federalism. No thanks, we are not interested.

As I have already said, articles 92.7 and 16 of the British North America Act allocate health and social services exclusively to the provinces. There is, however, also a federal health department.

Next year, the federal Department of Health will cost the taxpayers in excess of one billion dollars, a billion dollars wasted doing what the governments of Quebec and the provinces could very well do themselves.

Moreover, this superfluous department allocates sizeable amounts for programs and projects already in existence in Quebec. Let me give you some examples of these, Mr. Speaker: the strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities, the campaign against family violence, the new horizons program, the seniors secretariat, the tobacco strategy, the drug strategy, the AIDS strategy, the program on pregnancy and child development, the children's bureau-I could go on and on.

The federal cuts should have been in these areas of duplication, but it insists on having a finger in every pie, and the disastrous effect on public finances does not seem to be enough to convince it to accept reality.

[The Speaker]

I must interrupt you, dear colleague. You will have the floor again after question period. It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to statements by members.

Vancouver Grizzlies

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today the Vancouver Grizzlies basketball team will play its inaugural game in the National Basketball Association in Portland, Oregon. Arthur Griffiths and general manager Stu Jackson will undoubtedly lead our new Vancouver basketball team to many victories.

There is a lot of anticipation in Vancouver. The Grizzlies will be playing in the state of the art GM Place stadium which will give to the team an advantage over the rest of the teams in the league. The fans will not be disappointed because they will be treated to one of the most exciting and popular sports in the world.

Canadians should be proud that they have two teams in the NBA they can call their own. We have to build on the success of what Canadian Dr. James Naismith started. The Vancouver Grizzlies and the Toronto Raptors will do us proud.

I would also like to take this opportunity to wish to the Vancouver Canucks good luck and success in their new season. The Canucks will also be playing in the GM arena under general manager Pat Quinn who assembled a talented and skilled team.

To the Vancouver Grizzlies and the Vancouver Canucks, bonne chance.

Canadian Unity

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, surely this government finally gets the message that millions of Canadians want change.

Today, Canada's borders may be intact but the unity of the Canadian people is not. Canadians are divided into at least three groups. One group, unhappy with today's way of life, wants to leave. Another group wants to stay but leave our way of life as is, the status quo. The third group wants to stay and make the necessary changes to improve the Canadian way of life.

The group advocating the status quo by that very fact created the existence of the other two groups. The status quo is not effective and must now go into our history books. The group advocating separation has been denied.

To avoid this reoccurring, this government must show leadership and make the necessary changes. I invite the government to make use of the new Confederation plan put forward by Reform. Copies are available upon request, in plain brown envelopes if desired.

Bill C-101

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-101 is about much more than the restructuring of the rail system in western Canada. In reality and especially in response to the loss of the Crow benefit, the legislation shifts the balance of power unfairly to the ultimate benefit of the railways.

I ask the House not to forget that there are captive shippers out there whose entire economy will be affected by the outcome of this bill. More than 60,000 farmers in Saskatchewan have a direct interest in the outcome of this bill. These farmers now pay the entire cost of the shipping themselves. They are at the bottom of the chain so to speak and cannot pass increased shipping costs on to anyone else.

It is important to these producers to have quality railways and quality, affordable rail services. It is also important to Canada to have a successful farm sector because without these producers and shippers the western economy will not grow.

Once again it seems that the Liberals are more concerned about corporate profits than they are about the livelihoods of thousands of prairie farmers.

Refugees

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the founding of the United Nations the plight of unwanted displaced peoples has occupied a central role in the affairs of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Since its creation in 1950 this organization has provided temporary protection to millions of people displaced from their homes by war, famine or political persecution. Canada has worked with, supported and financed United Nations efforts to ensure that people displaced and who are living in fear of persecution are protected and resettled.

Refugees are a fundamental fact of the world in which we live. Our challenge is not just to provide protection but to work with the United Nations in peace building and creating the conditions for safe repatriation of refugees to their countries of origin. Canadians can rest assured that the government will continue to nurture the excellent working relationship that it has with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Butterfly Reserves

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today on a significant event that is taking place in my riding.

The Long Point national wildlife area, Point Pelee National Park and Prince Edward Point national wildlife area have all been officially dedicated as Monarch Butterfly Reserves. As part of the Canada-Mexico environmental co-operation program this dedication adds to the already recognized environmental initiatives that Long Point is involved in.

Long Point is a special place and is home to a diverse variety of wildlife. Long Point is already recognized as a biosphere reserve and Ramsar site. The combination of public and private lands that make up this fragile piece of landscape together produce one of the most unique and sensitive ecosystems in Canada today. Long Point

is one of three locations where the Monarch butterfly concentrates before its long journey to its wintering grounds in Mexico.

Most of us recognize the Monarch as a special butterfly and by ensuring the future health and well-being of this insect Elgin-Norfolk and all Canadians can take pride in being part of this important environmental initiative.

I commend the Long Point Bird Observatory and the Norfolk field naturalists.

Quebec Referendum

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has once again shown world leadership. We have conducted a civilized debate on the most serious subject a nation can face: its own existence.

Where other countries have resorted to armed violence and devastation to impose change, we have conducted a spirited but peaceful campaign with the ultimate decision being made at the ballot box. Let us all accept the decision made by the people of Quebec with tolerance, openness and mutual respect. Let us promptly respond to the need for change to our Confederation fairly and equitably for all provinces and territories.

Let us work out our differences in the spirit of co-operation and reasonable compromise. That is our trademark; that is the Canadian way. Let us enter a new chapter of our illustrious history and again face the world with confidence and pride. O Canada, we all truly stand on guard for thee.

New Brunswick Premier

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the behaviour of New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna, who is courting Quebec businesses to bring them to his province, is utterly disgraceful. While begging Quebecers to vote no in the referendum and asking them, once again, to believe in Canadian federalism, Mr. McKenna was secretly working to take away their jobs.

What a great demonstration of love for the people of Quebec from the Premier of New Brunswick. This is the man who, when Quebec was in a weak position and making minimal demands, was the first one to stab it in the back by repudiating the Meech Lake accord.

The next time Quebecers have to make a decision on their future, they will not be fooled by the real intentions and hypocritical attitudes of people such as Mr. McKenna.

Alberta

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Alberta government recently announced its own referendum on the future of Albertans.

The vote is about freedom for Albertans. The vote is about the devolution of power from the federal government to the province and the people. The vote is about the very right of Albertans to conduct business the way they choose in the future.

In a country where people would respect the results of a referendum which would allow one province to leave Confederation, surely the government and the minister of agriculture will respect the results of a plebiscite to give farmers a choice on how to market their grain.

Between November 14 and 24, Alberta's 50,000 wheat and barley farmers will have their say. The choice is between a continued wheat board monopoly on buying wheat and barley or the right to sell through the board or directly to any customer.

For Alberta farmers now is their chance. They should let their voice be heard, get out and vote.

Quebec Referendum

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the recent Quebec referendum was like the proverbial Chinese two-sided coin. It created on the one side a feeling of deep anxiety and on the other it awakened a sense of national pride in all Canadians.

Even though the margin of victory was narrow, in the end we were all winners. It is better to work for change together within a united country than to negotiate bitterly as separate nations.

Quebecers showed faith in Canada by voting no. British Columbians rekindled their national pride and francophones in B.C. feel secure again in their heritage. It is time for the healing to begin.

The strength of our country, which is its respect for differences, must lead us forward together in a spirit of understanding and compromise.

Canada has set out to prove that a diverse and multicultural people with linguistic duality and varied heritage can live together in peace and tolerance.

The world looks to us for inspiration and hope. Flawed though it is, Canada is still the best country in the world in which to live.

Leader Of The Bloc Quebecois

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois showed unprecedented contempt for democracy in a statement he made the day before yesterday as he was leaving the House.

He said, and I quote: "Never again will sovereignists beg the rest of Canada for anything. Never again will we negotiate on unequal terms". The Bloc leader must set his personal frustrations aside and accept the outcome of Monday's referendum.

Quebecers have rejected the option of Quebec separation. As a federal member of Parliament representing a Quebec riding, the Bloc leader must acknowledge Quebecers' wishes. Separation has been rejected. Let us now work on bringing about the changes that Quebecers want within Canada.

Riding Of Saint-Maurice

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's own riding, the riding of Saint-Maurice, voted yes in the referendum. This was a strong yes, with 56 per cent of the voters saying yes, or 9 per cent more than in the 1980 referendum.

The people of his own riding sent the message to the Prime Minister that his vision of Quebec was not the right one. The yes vote in the riding of Saint-Maurice means that people want more than just the meaningless cosmetic changes proposed by the Prime Minister. The yes vote in the riding of Saint-Maurice very clearly shows that the people of Shawinigan want a country, a very different country from the one that the hon. member for Saint-Maurice is trying to sell them.