Debates of Oct. 11th, 1996

Broadcasting

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Last March, the Minister of Canadian Heritage asked the CRTC to review the licences of Power Music Choice and DMX, because these audio programming businesses were not complying with the Canadian and French language content rules in broadcasting. Last

August, the CRTC maintained its decision and renewed Power's and DMX's licences even though these businesses had not changed their programming one bit.

Does the minister recognize that the conditions that prompted her to return DMX's licence to the CRTC still prevail and that DMX still has a major problem in terms of the Canadian and French language content requirements?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, both licensees the hon. member is referring to have agreed to comply with Canadian content requirements. They are also committed to increasing Canadian content by 25 per cent.

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

Mr. Speaker, that may have been the case for Power, which, in any case, decided to put its licence on ice. But such is not the case for DMX, which was authorized by the CRTC to carry 17 U.S. channels out of a 110-channel pool.

How can the minister claim there is no problem, since otherwise, the U.S. Trade Secretary would stop writing to his Canadian counterpart, the Minister for International Trade. There is indeed a problem.

On September 27, in this House, the Minister of Canadian Heritage made a commitment to protect Canadian broadcasting interests. Can the minister confirm today that she is staying on course and that protecting the cultural interests of Canada and Quebec remains her priority?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. government is exerting enormous pressure on the Canadian government to make concessions in the DMX matter. The Americans' goal is clear: getting rid of the cultural exemption clause in NAFTA.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage admit today in this House that, if her government makes concessions in the DMX matter, it will be easy for the U.S. to circumvent the cultural exemption clause in NAFTA?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the fact that, after we decided to return the licence applications filed by Power, DMX, Galaxy and Allegro, both Power and DMX agreed to increase Canadian content by 25 per cent and made a commitment to comply with the French language content requirements set out in the existing legislation.

That is why we have protected Canadian culture and will protect Canadian culture. One thing is clear: a 25 per cent increase in Canadian content cannot be called a loss.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to our knowledge, only Allegro, Galaxie and Power Music Choice have written to the CRTC to refuse to use the license clause allowing for assembly. DMX never wrote to the CRTC to say that it would not use this clause.

In this context, Allegro and Galaxie are Canadian audio services companies whose programming will be done entirely in Canada. The content of their broadcast will be 30 per cent Canadian and 25 per cent French, in accordance with the rules on Canadian content in the broadcasting sector.

Does the minister recognize that Galaxie and Allegro will be the victims of unfair competition by DMX Music, and that DMX will import unauthorized American channels and, more importantly, will be subject to licensing requirements clearly less rigorous as regards Canadian and French content?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, instead of relying on the Globe and Mail , the hon. member should have waited for my department's press release to get the facts. These facts are as follows: DMX and Power Corporation have both agreed to the same conditions.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister will have to make a decision in the case of DMX and as regards the licenses obtained from the CRTC. Does the minister recognize that, if she is prepared to protect Canadian content and the interests of the Canadian and Quebec cultures, she has the power, under the CRTC act, to cancel DMX's license?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, Power Corporation and DMX agreed to increase their Canadian content by 25 per cent, following cabinet interventions and decisions-

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

That is not true.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

The hon. member says it is not true in the case of DMX. I have a written commitment from DMX. This is why I suggest to the hon. member that he should wait for the cabinet decision, instead of getting his information from the Globe and Mail . He will see, in writing, that the commitment made by DMX is the same as that made by Power Corporation.

Pipelines

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on July 27 the Minister of Natural Resources wrote the following regarding the route of the Sable Island gas pipeline: "The Government of Canada has no intention of interfering with the regulatory process in favour of one project over another and ultimately market forces will decide which project will succeed".

We note that earlier, on June 7, after a meeting with the premier of Quebec, the Prime Minister had stated: "We will work toward supporting the Quebec proposal". Interestingly, yesterday the Prime Minister said he wanted to see the gas pipeline go through Quebec.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Is it she who speaks for the government when saying that the free market will dictate the route of the pipeline, or is it the Prime Minister who says the pipeline must go to Quebec?

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the project will require the approval of the National Energy Board on matters of need, financial integrity, of routing and environment and other public interest considerations.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was well read.

The Prime Minister's comments on this issue, both on June 7 and on October 10 have basically compromised the object-

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Come on, Jim. Let's see if you can come up with something.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

The parliamentary secretary and I are going to have a reading contest today.

Obviously, the Prime Minister has learned nothing from the national energy program. I do not have to read about that. The Liberals will remember. That was the program which caused tens of thousands of Albertans to go into personal bankruptcy over the ill-thought out Liberal national energy program. They are doing it again.

Why is the Prime Minister trying to influence the National Energy Board by exerting political pressure to re-route this pipeline through Quebec?

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, additionally more of the projects will need the approval of the marketplace.

For projects to proceed, they will also need the support of the customers to guarantee the economic feasibility of the pipeline project. Every project will receive the same regulatory treatment from the federal regulatory agencies. The principles of fairness, equity and efficiency will be applied to all proposals.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this reading contest is becoming fun. On one hand, I have a question, on the other hand, she has an answer to a question that I have not asked. We will have to get on to the same page.

The author of the report on the Sable pipeline route stated that the building of the Sable gas pipeline to the U.S. through Nova Scotia and southern New Brunswick makes the most sense. This proposal is 100 per cent private sector funded. Gaz Metropolitan, on the other hand, is proposing that customers of TransCanada PipeLines subsidize the cost of the Prime Minister's Sable Island-Quebec diversion by a 3 per cent increase in price. This is a 3 per cent tax increase on heating the homes of Canadian families, any way you slice it.

Will the Minister of Natural Resources unequivocally renounce this 3 per cent tax increase on heating Canadian homes?

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated before, all the projects are going to require the approval of the National Energy Board.

Job Creation

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Minister of Finance confirmed that he would stick with the policy he began three years ago. While admitting that he found the job situation worrisome, he went on in the same breath to tell us that no additional measure would be necessary to stimulate job creation.

This morning, the wonderful results of the minister's policy were announced. Statistics Canada confirmed that not only is the job situation worrisome, as the minister said, but that it is a veritable disaster, with the unemployment rate on the increase. And we have him to thank for it.

I put the following question to him: Will the minister come to his senses and admit that his government is on the wrong track with its job creation policy?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the figures we saw this morning are very disappointing. However, sight must not be lost of the fact that the monthly figures are very volatile. We saw this last June and we saw it again this morning. But we also saw that we created 82,000 jobs in Canada last month, twice the number of jobs that unfortunately disappeared today.

This indicates very clearly, and I am certain that the member across the way will agree with me, that this is a very complex problem. We can see this in the discussions at the Quebec summit. It is a problem that will only be solved by expanding our export markets, and providing better manpower training. There is no magic formula. We are working very hard on this. Furthermore, the trend this year is positive; to date, 55,000 new jobs have been created in the private sector.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister that the situation is complex, but something must be done. We are 870,000 jobs short of what we had before the recession, and the minister sits back and does nothing but spout lofty speeches about job creation.

I formally ask the minister, on behalf of unemployed workers in Canada, whether he is immediately going to implement a real measure to stimulate employment, in the form of a substantial reduction in employers' and employees' rates of contribution to the unemployment insurance fund. Not the measly 5 cents he told us about yesterday, but a substantial reduction, like the Bloc Quebecois has been asking him for since we first came to this House, and like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce asked him for last week, a full 60 cents less.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that it is certainly a priority for the government to reduce unemployment insurance premiums. Furthermore, we have suited action to word in the past. I must point out that, last year, the decrease in unemployment insurance contributions was, with one exception, the largest decrease since the creation of the unemployment insurance program: $1.8 million.

Second, I told the member that unemployment insurance is not the only drain on payrolls. There are also provincial deductions for health benefits and the CSST. With your permission, I would like to tell you, just to show that there is no magic solution, what the president of the Association des manufacturiers exportateurs du Québec had to say this morning. A survey of its members concerning the decrease in payroll taxes revealed that only 4 per cent of them replied that this measure will lead directly to the creation of jobs.

At the same time, Mr. Ponton said that lowering payroll taxes does not necessarily result in the creation of jobs. This is simply to say that there is no magic solution. Yes, premiums must be lowered, but there is no magic formula.