Debates of June 12th, 1996

Regulations Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The deputy whip for the government has requested the division on the motion be deferred until tomorrow at the end of Government Orders.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think if you would ask you would find unanimous consent in the House to further defer the division until next Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

My colleagues, is there unanimous consent to defer the division until next Tuesday?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in this House, on May 10, I asked the minister of Transport a question on the federal government's responsibility with regard to the Quebec bridge.

Again, in his answer, the minister of Transport refused to acknowledge that the federal government had any responsibility with regard to repairing the Quebec bridge. Well, his government changed its mind because last week, on Friday, June 7, during a meeting at the Quebec Citadel, Canada's Prime Minister and Quebec's premier entered into an agreement establishing the costs to be assumed by the various parties: 60 per cent for CN, 30 per cent for the provincial government and 10 per cent for the federal government, through its Department of Transport which, until then, had refused to acknowledge its responsibility.

Let me tell you a short story. This afternoon-it is purely a coincidence-I asked a question on another subject, the closure of a CN service shop, and the minister of Transport refused to acknowledge his responsibility in this area. So, in spite of everything, I remain optimistic regarding this matter, because of the minister's flip-flop on the issue of the Quebec bridge.

But this is not the point. Now that the issue has been settled, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport, or his representative, what led him to change his answer, which he had given me on several occasions, including on May 10, and recognize that the federal government did have responsibility, since it is paying 10 per cent.

I would also like to ask him not to change his mind and to stand by this good decision regarding repairs to the Quebec bridge, which is a significant symbol in the Quebec City area. I would like to know the terms of the agreement, and how long the federal government's involvement-the 10 per cent previously mentioned-will last. I would also like to ask the minister if he recognizes that the federal government can pay immediately or as soon as possible, because people believe that the repairs only involve a paint job on the Quebec bridge, when in fact, important girders have to be replaced. It has been estimated that materials represent a third of the costs involved.

I would like to ask the minister why could we not use the services of a company in my own riding, namely Dominion Bridge, which actually built the bridge and recently acquired the MIL Davie shipyard. Since the government has given no money to the MIL Davie shipyard in the last three years, the Transport Department has a good opportunity to influence CN to have the work carried out by Dominion Bridge's workers at MIL Davie, because we know that its president, Mr. Tellier, is a former senior public servant. They say it is private, but we know that he has spent his whole life here.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the question of the hon. member for Lévis concerning the government's contribution on the maintenance on the Quebec

bridge. I would think that as a member from Quebec who has in the past harboured some suspicions about whether or not the federation actually works, the member would be standing in his place and congratulating the federal government on its announcement of a contribution toward the ongoing maintenance of the Quebec bridge.

As the hon. member is no doubt aware, the Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec met last week and discussed various issues, including the Quebec bridge. That very successful meeting is further proof of the good work this federation can do when members of the federal cabinet meet with premiers of the provinces. They can work out some of their differences and do what is best for the country.

It was announced by the Prime Minister that an agreement for a maintenance program had been made. The hon. member is also no doubt aware of the framework of the agreement which was outlined during the press conference held by the Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec. It has been agreed that $60 million will be spent over the next 10 years on a maintenance program. Of that amount CN will contribute 60 per cent, the province of Quebec will contribute 30 per cent and the federal government will contribute 10 per cent.

We are very happy to see the province of Quebec working with CN, the owner of the bridge since 1993, to agree upon an accelerated maintenance program for this important transportation link for the people of Quebec City and all the people of Quebec. In addition to the 14 daily train crossings, 25,000 vehicles use that bridge every day.

Deterioration of the Quebec bridge has resulted from its traffic. Now there is a tripartite agreement between the federal government, the government of the province of Quebec-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry. The hon. member's time has expired.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on May 28 on behalf of many Canadians I asked the Prime Minister to investigate the concentration of ownership in the print media.

The Minister of Industry replied that there are no legal grounds for intervening on this issue. This is a very puzzling response. If I take this a step further, the federal government had no legal grounds to prosecute Canadians for paying for sex with minors in foreign countries, that is, until it passed legislation on the issue. If the Liberals have no legislation to assist in their investigation of the concentration of media ownership, they should pass some.

Freedom of the press is very important as is the public's right to know. When the newspapers and any other media are not in a competitive environment the fundamental principles of democracy are compromised. It is simply wrong that the Liberal government refuses to correct this situation.

The Bureau of Competition Policy quickly approved the mergers of these newspaper sales, but the minister knows that the Bureau of Competition Policy is ineffective. It has no mandate to investigate concentration of ownership. The bureau does not at this time have the power to look into the problems of having one individual owning 53 per cent of all daily newspapers and 42 per cent of the circulation across the country.

What Canadians need is a Canada newspaper act that would limit concentration of ownership of Canadian newspapers and encourage new newspapers to start. This new law would give Canadians more choice and would ensure more balanced news stories and editorials.

Print journalists play an important role in this country. They inform Canadians about what is happening in their governments, their communities and around the world. They also represent and present opinions. These are basic functions of newspaper journalists. They also have responsibilities. They have the responsibility of telling us what is really going on from a balanced perspective. It is an awesome responsibility that is carried out by the frontline reporters. They carry out their tremendous responsibility by interviewing people, researching issues and investigating stories. I applaud them in their efforts.

This line of work is not without risk. Around the world scores of journalists have been murdered carrying out their jobs. This is the price of effective reporting. Reporters strive to bring us the truth but they cannot do their jobs properly when newspaper budgets are slashed until one reporter is carrying out the work of three.

In the case of the Regina Leader-Post , there is no longer a full time reporter dedicated to the agricultural beat. This has happened in a province where agriculture is the very heart of the economy. This is not being accountable to the readers; this is only being accountable to the bottom line of the newspaper's owner, Conrad Black, who is interested in greater profits only.

Hollinger Inc. controlled by Conrad Black now controls 53 per cent of the daily newspapers in Canada. It means one individual is controlling the editorial content of 58 daily newspapers and dictating the activities of their reporters. As Peter C. Newman points out in Maclean's magazine: ``There isn't the slightest doubt that Mr. Black will use his 58 Canadian daily newspapers to promote his neo-conservative views,'' as he did with the Jerusalem Post just recently.

It is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that newspapers are carrying out their responsibilities. When news is suppressed or censored because of the prejudiced views of one person, then democracy is threatened. In turn, the federal government is not serving democracy well when it does nothing. Doing nothing means the Liberal government agrees with Conrad Black that the ownership of newspapers in this country should be concentrated and democracy should be compromised.

Why is this so? Why are the Liberals not acting? Is it because Conrad Black and the Prime Minister are good friends, as reported in the June 1 Globe and Mail ? Or is it simply because political contributions have been made to the Liberal Party for ignoring the concerns of Canadians on this issue? Which is it? Canadians want to know. Canadians have a right to know.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden, I have some general comments.

First, this government has no authority to freeze or block commercial transactions, as he suggested. He should also take a look at the provincial government's jurisdiction. He should be talking to his counterparts, the NDP government in Saskatchewan, when dealing with matters that are within the jurisdiction of a provincial government and not the federal government.

Second, freedom of speech is guaranteed under the charter of rights and freedoms.

Third, there are fundamental changes under way in methods of communication. Radio, television and now the Internet provide excellent vehicles for the exchange of information and opinion.

The enforcement of the Competition Act is entrusted to the director of investigation and research who is an independent law enforcement official. The director has a longstanding enforcement history in the newspaper industry.

In 1974 monopoly charges were laid against K.C. Irving Ltd. In 1980 criminal charges were brought against Southam and Thomson for market sharing. In 1990 the director challenged the acquisition by Southam of community newspapers in the Vancouver area where Southam already owned the two daily newspapers. The director concluded that the acquisition of two community newspapers resulted in a substantial lessening of competition in the advertising markets served by these newspapers. This matter is currently before the supreme court.

The focus of the director's examination is on the economic effect a transaction will have on competition in advertising markets. The director is not mandated to look at social issues such as editorial diversity. Newspaper advertising markets are local in nature. A newspaper operating in Vancouver cannot be said to be in competition for advertisers with a newspaper in Calgary. When there is only one newspaper in a community its acquisition does not constitute a lessening of competition but only a change of ownership.

The director has closely followed developments in this industry since 1993 when he reviewed Hollinger's initial 19 per cent investment in Southam. Every subsequent acquisition of newspapers by Hollinger was reviewed to see whether there was any overlap between the newspaper being acquired and either a Hollinger or Southam publication.

With respect to the latest acquisition of Southam shares by Hollinger, Hollinger and Power Corporation approached the competition bureau and made representations. The director reviewed the proposed transaction and concluded that it would not lessen competition in any newspaper advertising market.

Finally, Hollinger's day to day conduct will continue to be governed by all the provisions of the Competition Act. Any further newspaper acquisitions by either Hollinger or Southam will be reviewed by the director.

Indeed, Mr. Black acknowledged publicly that he would likely be-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 9.43 p.m.)