Debates of Oct. 29th, 1998

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Dartmouth for her comments. I welcome some of the criticisms, some of which may not be as accurate as one would like. However, I welcome the constructive approach and I look forward to looking at this legislation in greater detail with her at committee.

I will correct one of the slight inaccuracies. The member was essentially saying that this government was insisting that cultural matters be within the MAI. I not only have to disagree, but the minister who was spearheading the Canadian efforts vis-à-vis the MAI was quite explicit a number of times in this House that culture was to be excluded from it. It would preferably be a sector exclusion and it would certainly be a Canadian exclusion. To say that the government was trying to put culture on the table with the MAI is not quite accurate. I hope the member will accept that.

I will return to comments made by Reform about postal subsidies for small newspapers. This government supports that. We support small newspapers, in some cases to the tune of 75% of the cost of their postal rates. Postal subsidization is one of the ways the Government of Canada supports the periodical industry.

Would the members of the Reform Party have us continue in one case and not in the other? Surely to goodness they do not support such double standards.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments. I agree that the minister of heritage has a real commitment to preserving culture. I believe she was carrying the flame in that respect with regard to the MAI negotiations.

However, I asked the Minister for International Trade twice in this House to be very specific about the wording around “Would you guarantee a complete cultural carve-out?” One day the answer was yes and then two days later, when I read the script of a dinner speech made by the minister, the wording was quite different. It had sort of backed down on cultural exemption.

I think that the devil is in the wording. That is what has been confounding this whole issue all along. Whether we are talking carve-out or exemption, at the 11th hour at these tables what exactly is given away? I do not believe for a minute that the spirit of the MAI is dead, but I am still not convinced that if the MAI had continued on in the present realm of negotiations that we would have had what we wanted at the end of the day in terms of real cultural protection.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, many more people in Canada subscribe to the weekly newspaper industry than they do to magazines. I want to make that clear. I am talking in particular about my province, but no matter what province people live in, most get their culture from the weekly newspaper.

The hon. member mentioned that Canada Post was going to relinquish something in the order of $18 million to drop the rate of postage for items coming into Canada. Because of Canada Post some weekly newspapers have to drive or truck their papers to different locations. Through Canada Post it would take a week or so before the papers reached their destination. Those sending items to Canada have to pay the same rate as if they were mailing it at a local post office. Why? There is an inconsistency in losing $18 million. The answer was that it will not cost the Canadian taxpayers. Canada Post is losing $18 million and there will be no cost to the Canadian taxpayers?

Where does the hon. member think they are going to find this $18 million? Will it be done by putting a higher postage rate on our weeklies?

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I too have some concerns about where the $18 million will come from. I will turn that question back to my hon. colleague opposite.

I am still not clear. That $18 million will not come out of the air. It obviously will come out of Canada Post, and we know who pays for Canada Post. Maybe the parliamentary secretary could answer that question.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

They cannot answer it.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I find interesting in this debate is that the Reform Party, on the one hand, is saying that we have to respect our international trade obligations and, on the other hand, is saying that we cannot do that. This is indeed the result of a decision made at the WTO. The postal rate on foreign magazines will reflect the WTO decision.

The point is that the government is respecting all foreign decisions of the WTO, which is why Bill C-55 is before us. Will it have an impact? Of course it will have an impact. Of course there will have to be adjustments made.

Will it be done on the backs of small newspapers? I think not.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am worried about the word “adjustments”. That is a word that usually means job losses. It means money being taken from places that are not immediately evident.

With respect to this whole bill, I must say that it still looks to me like a quick fix and an effort in some respect to save the magazine industry. In many ways it is still in denial of the root causes of the problem that we are now facing, which has to do with our engaging in trade agreements without sufficiently understanding the impact they are going to have on our cultural industries.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, in response to the comments from the member, it is indeed a difficult situation.

There is one country that is essentially dominating in many areas, such as the movie industry, magazines, television and so forth. The government is perfectly aware of that. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Canadian Heritage as early as last June—and the member might recall because she attended some of the functions—welcomed a delegation from some 20 countries to discuss this very difficult situation. It is not unique to Canada. It is a situation that is also of concern to France, Greece, Mexico, Italy and a number of countries around the world.

This monoculturalism, if you will, is a reflection of the strength of American cultural products which are swamping, in some areas, certain countries' attempts to have their own culture reflected in their own vehicles. The Government of Canada, through the Minister of Canadian Heritage, is tackling that. It is very difficult and it will be a drawn out effort which we will not be able to achieve alone as a country.

Other countries which have that same preoccupation are now joining hands to make sure that indeed their cultural sovereignty, which in some cases is seriously threatened, is protected, encouraged, defended and promoted. This government fully intends to be intrinsically involved in that effort.

We welcome comments from the member opposite, who is perfectly aware of the difficulties that this kind of effort involves. We will welcome her continued support and the continued support of her party in attempting to resolve, in perhaps a larger fashion, this whole difficulty.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would have to say that our party is on record as not being in favour at all of the MAI in its present configuration. When I say I am in support of cultural carve outs in terms of international trade agreements, I would have to say that this is in terms of a new kind of international trade agreement which in fact supports environmental concerns, labour concerns and social concerns, as well as cultural concerns.

I wish that our government had been right in front of the Government of France in pulling out of the MAI negotiations and killing that particularly egregious trade agreement. Unfortunately that was not the case, but I wish it had been.

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.

In giving an historic overview of the issue before us today, we should point out that, since 1965, the Canadian magazine industry has always enjoyed the support of the federal government.

Indeed, the Royal Commission on Publications, set up in 1961 under the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, recommended that measures be taken to protect the Canadian magazine industry against dumping. To that end, measures prohibiting the import of split run magazines were finally implemented in 1965.

Measures were also taken to provide reduced postal rates for Canadian magazines, thus helping them lower their shipping costs.

I should point out that the Progressive Conservative government promoted strong growth for the Canadian owned magazine industry. Indeed, during the negotiations on the Free Trade Agreement, we made sure that an exemption provision would be included for the cultural industry as a whole. A similar provision was also included in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

However, in 1993, the magazine Sports Illustrated managed to circumvent the ban on imports by electronically transmitting a split run edition to a Canadian printer. The Progressive Conservative government took speedy action, forming a task force to bring policy into line with the electronic era.

In response to the recommendations contained in the task force's interim report, the Hon. Jean Charest, then the minister responsible for Investment Canada, issued ministerial directives under the Investment Canada Act that eliminated the loophole by which Time Warner had introduced a split run of Sports Illustrated into Canada.

The final report of the task force led, in 1995, to Bill C-3, the purpose of which was to strengthen the position of the Canadian periodical industry by means of measures to discourage split run editions of periodicals, particularly American ones, in Canada.

These measures included an excise tax of 80% on the total value of advertising space in split run editions, and a customs tariff making it illegal to import split run periodicals.

Unfortunately, in October 1997, the World Trade Organization ruled that levying customs and excise taxes on split run periodicals went against international free trade agreements. Canada was given until the end of October 1998 to bring its policy into line with the provisions of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, failing which the United States would take retaliatory measures.

Publishers of Canadian periodicals maintain that American publishers, who cover their costs in the United States, can offer lower advertising rates to Canadian business. Canadian periodicals depend heavily on advertising revenue, which is estimated at $350 million.

The government has therefore introduced this bill as a response to this request, taking care to protect Canadians' ability to express themselves through Canadian cultural vehicles, such as those offered by this country's periodical industry.

Incidentally, the World Trade Organization's decision did not challenge the ability of member countries to take action to protect their cultural identify.

The proposed measures provide among other things that only Canadian periodical publishers will be able to sell advertising services aimed primarily at the Canadian market and that stiff fines as high as $250,000 will be imposed on foreign publishers who contravene this legislation.

The bill before us also specifies that both the customs tariff preventing split runs magazines from entering the country and the excise tax on the distribution of such magazines in Canada are removed. From now on, foreign publishers will have access to the postal subsidy program, and commercial postage rates for Canadian and foreign publications will be harmonized accordingly.

This concludes the historical overview. Now I would like to remind the hon. members that the party I have the honour to represent in this House has always been committed to ensuring future of the Canadian publishing industry, which is closely tied to advertizing income. It is indeed essential that this industry be promoted and protected.

That having been said, the government must give Canadian publishers the assurance that the new measures will not result in another trade crisis. Canada cannot afford another fiasco like the one caused recently by the flip-flop over MMT.

Bill C-55 is a very important piece of legislation. Aside from providing much needed support to our Canadian magazine publishers, it shows publicly that we are intent on protecting and maintaining our cultural sovereignty in the midst of ever-increasing pressures from global forces.

Protecting our cultural integrity in Canada has always been a major priority of any trade discussion Canada participated in. Just think that plans for the multilateral investment agreement are being wrecked in part by the fact that both Canada and France refuse to put cultural industries on the table.

The previous Progressive Conservative government was deeply committed to the protection of cultural industries. In negotiating the Free Trade Agreement, we ensured all cultural industries were excluded from the operation of the FTA, an exclusion that was carried over into NAFTA.

It is very important to note that the WTO in its decision was not questioning Canada's right to protect its cultural industries; it objected to a policy that directly targeted U.S. magazines. So, rather than specifically target U.S. magazines, Bill C-55 seeks to put restraints on advertising services.

Essentially, Bill C-55 will restrict the sale of advertising directed at the Canadian market to Canadian publications. It should be noted that U.S. magazines will still be able to sell advertising aimed at the Canadian market. However, these advertisements will have to appear in all North American publications. They cannot appear solely in magazines aimed at the Canadian market.

Some people may wonder why we should impose measures to protect our Canadian magazine industry. There are very important reasons for us to do that. The Canadian magazine industry employs thousands of Canadians and pumps millions of dollars into our economy. Many distinguished Canadian writers publish in our magazines insightful and interesting articles on people, places and things that reflect our unique culture.

The Canadian market is one of the most open markets in the world for imported magazines. According to the Canadian Magazine Publishers Association, imports account for 50% of magazine sales in Canada and over 80% of newsstand space. Despite this intense competition from foreign magazines, Canadian magazines continue to attract their share of readers, allowing them to hold their own in a very competitive industry.

The Canadian magazine industry plays an important cultural role in helping to define who we are as a people and where we stand as a nation. Culture defines our beliefs and our values. We are not automatically born with a culture. We may be born into a culture, but it is something we learn. We need Canada's magazine industry, so that future generations have the opportunity to learn and appreciate this culture that distinguishes us and that is the envy of the rest of the world.

As I mentioned earlier, for some thirty years now, government after government in Canada has passed laws designed to help Canadian publishers earn enough in advertising revenues to remain competitive on the Canadian market.

When Sports Illustrated managed to circumvent import restrictions by electronically sending its publication to a printer in Canada, it basically opened the door to unfair business practices by American publishers, who began to produce their magazines with split runs and to reap the benefits of bundling the editorial content of their American editions with Canadian advertising, which they could sell at a much better price than their Canadian competitors.

Canadian publishers count on advertising to generate 65% of their revenues. It is therefore urgent to act to protect them against the possibility of unfair business practices by their American competitors.

Advertising has not just recently become a powerful influence on the course of our society. Before printing was invented, criers were hired to announce upcoming events. I know of a member of government who would have made an excellent one had he been born a few centuries ago.

Prior to the advent of radio and television, magazines drew most of their revenues from advertising. Since then, they struggle to create their own niche and ensure their survival. Advertising has changed more in the past 10 years than in the past 60 years because of new technologies and market developments.

Advertising revenues amount to over $350 million annually. Canadian publishers depend on these revenues to survive. A stop must be put to any threat of unfair and grasping practices. Canadian publishers need our support in order to remain competitive in the new world economy.

This bill is far from perfect. Even after a full year to consult with international trade experts, countless legal advisers and representatives from Canada's publishing industry, a number of issues still need to be clarified.

First, as I mentioned earlier, the postal rate changes could have adverse effects on small community based publications. Legion branches, which previously enjoyed postal rate subsidies, could be in danger of losing this assistance.

The same could be said for church organizations that provide their congregations with regular updates of church activities. Because these organizations are not charging their members for their materials, they are no longer entitled to preferential postal rates as are other Canadian magazine publishers. This issue must be addressed by the minister either through amendments or regulations.

The last section of the bill, which relates to the grandfathering clause, must be more clearly defined. As it stands, the bill appears to restrict important contributors to our Canadian magazine industry, such as Reader's Digest and Time Warner, from expanding their present interests, including future investment possibilities. While I realize that was not the intent of the bill, the wording could lead to such an interpretation.

I am afraid the bill might not survive another WTO challenge. I also wonder about a possible challenge under the Canadian charter of rights by the advertising industry.

Even though I was told by Heritage Canada officials that all possible avenues had been properly explored, I simply cannot forget the government's incompetence in the MMT issue, the gasoline additive, which is now costing Canadian taxpayers $13 million U.S. Canadian taxpayers cannot afford another costly mistake by the government.

In conclusion, even though Bill C-55 is far from perfect, we should support it at second reading, so that it can be immediately referred to a committee for further review.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Shefford for her comments. She covered the issue and its background very well. She has raised legitimate concerns and I hope that the committee will be able to shed some light on them.

That having been said, I urge the House to return the bill to committee after passing it, in principle, at second reading, so that specific aspects can be considered in greater depth. I am looking forward to some good discussions with her colleague from West Nova in committee. Again, I thank her for her comments.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member.

We have something here that goes beyond what this bill attempts to do. If my figures are correct, 80% of all Canadians live closer to the United States than they do their neighbouring province. As a result of that population to the south, we have always been in a war with our struggle to prevent the sellout of Canadian culture. To many Canadians, culture means different things.

This bill needs total re-examination. Just as sure as what happened a few months ago in a retaliatory measure by the U.S. farmers against allegations that this government dumped wheat illegally into the United States all of which took place within my constituency, and as sure as I am standing here, the World Trade Organization is going to strike this bill down. In doing so, some Canadian industry somewhere is going to pay the price. I am getting tired of this.

We produce commodities which are superior in every detail; we produce better wheat; we produce better durum; we produce better hogs; we produce better cattle. All of those things are in my area of the country. The retaliation will probably not fall against anyone but western Canada and we will pay the price.

Let us put this back. Let us see if we cannot come up with something in negotiations before passing legislation that irritates the World Trade Organization and we in western Canada take it on the nose again.

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. I note that, like us, he is concerned about certain aspects of the bill.

We would like to see it passed at second reading and referred to committee for further consideration.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to set off my comments I would like to read an article that appeared in today's Ottawa Citizen . It is by Terence Corcoran, the editor of the Financial Post under the headline that the minister's bill kills magazines:

During the next 48 hours, (the minister) will charge about Ottawa executing her duties as Minister of Illegal Protectionism. To meet a world trade deadline Friday, she will formally announce the end of Ottawa's illegal 80 per cent excise tax on advertising in split-run magazines.

Then she will redirect Ottawa's illegal $50 million annual magazine postal subsidy so that it falls right into the hands of Ted Rogers, Philippe de Gaspé Beaubien and other needy Canadian magazine publishers. Simultaneously, (the minister) will be pushing Bill C-55, her illegal ban on Canadian advertising in foreign magazines, through second reading tonight in the Commons.

It's a lot of lawlessness for one minister to handle, but if any minister is up to the challenge of breaking constitutional and trade law, it's (this minister). In the course of making a hash of her stint as environment minister, (the minister) orchestrated Ottawa's illegal ban on the export of PCBs for incineration. The sole purpose of the export ban was to force Canadians to destroy PCBs at high cost in Canada rather than cheaply in the United States.

Another adventure (of the minister) in trade protectionism was an attempt to ban the use of the gasoline additive MMT. In the MMT case, (the minister) was in the pocket of the big auto firms, on whose behalf she parroted the claim that failure to ban MMT would add $3,000 to the price of new cars sold in Canada. No such price increase materialized. In the end, the illegal MMT ban cost Canadian taxpayers $13 million, money Ottawa had to pay in compensation to Ethyl Corp., the U.S. maker of MMT.

The Minister of Illegal Protectionism is in the pocket of Canada's two major magazine publishers, Ted Rogers' Maclean Hunter and Philippe de Gaspé Beaubien's Telemedia. Their magazines— Maclean's , Chatelaine , TV Guide —and the publications of a couple of other companies account for an estimated 50 per cent of the $350 million Canadian magazine advertising market.

The bill (the minister) is pushing through second reading today is the latest in a string of mostly unlawful federal measures to restrict the freedom of Canadian advertisers to use and journalists to produce magazines, and of readers to read more Canadian content. The (minister's) bill, however, is the most Draconian. It gives the minister power to send out magazine police to seize documents and make sure Canadians are not placing ads in foreign publications.

To justify the magazine laws, Heritage Canada spins a contradictory story. On the one hand, it claims the years of protectionism have been hugely successful, with the proportion of Canadian magazines rising from 25 per cent of sales and circulation in the 1950s to 65 per cent today. Then it claims that the industry is still being swamped with foreign magazines and needs more protection and subsidy.

But what the government's own studies actually show is that the Canadian magazine industry has been crippled by the magazine laws. Growth in magazine advertising has been stagnant for years compared with other markets and other countries, mainly because there are not enough Canadian magazines or magazine advertising opportunities. A government-sponsored study conducted by outside consultants concluded that if Ottawa allowed U.S. magazines to develop Canadian versions, or split-runs, the total volume of advertising dollars going to the English magazine market would jump 60 per cent from $212 million to $342 million.

In other words, if Ottawa lifted the ban on split-runs, magazine advertising by Canadian firms would jump 60 per cent. Where would the money go? The government study said most of it would probably go to U.S. magazines, although that's debatable. But even so, the split-runs would generate more Canadian journalism, more work for writers, more Canadian content, and more business for Canadian ad creators.

It is also far from certain that all the money would end up in the hands of U.S. publishers. The real crimp in the Canadian magazine market has been a failure to develop Canadian magazines in key growth fields. The government study (by Harrison Young Pesonen and Newell Inc.) identified four key magazine sectors—men's, sports, fashion and youth—that Canadian publishers have ignored. Why? Because the advertising flow is cut off by Ottawa, and because the existing Canadian giants—Maclean Hunter and Telemedia—have a stranglehold on most of the existing ad market. They and others have no competitive incentive to develop new Canadian magazines. And foreign magazines are banned from actually serving Canadian interests.

Magazine protectionism has killed growth in the Canadian magazine advertising market, and thereby has hampered magazine growth. What is supposed to be saving magazines in Canada is actually crippling the industry. This new law (by the minister) the Commons is expected to vote on tonight will continue to prevent growth in the industry.

So says Mr. Corcoran. Quite frankly it is pretty obvious the reason why I have read the article is that I happen to agree completely with the content of what Mr. Corcoran has said.

I had the privilege of being on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in the last parliament. I was involved in what became the copyright war. I can mention one of the poorly thought out sections of copyright law that was perhaps sold to the Liberal members, although I expect that they would have voted according to the minister's wishes in any event. It was sold to them and sold to Canadians on one level and it turns out that it is totally different.

I refer to the blank tape levy under copyright law. The blank tape levy was designed to say that Canadians who purchase blank tapes will in all likelihood be using them for illegal purposes. Rather than being innocent until proven guilty, a fee is going to be charged on these blank tapes because naughty Canadian people are going to be using them to illegally copy things that are subject to copyright. This goes completely and totally against anything in Canadian law. We should be deemed to be innocent until found guilty.

The minister attempted to sell this on the basis that it was only going to be 25 cents. Perhaps members can help me here. Was it 25 cents or 35 cents? Now it turns out it is going to be dollars per tape, not 25 cents per tape. This is fairly typical for the minister; $1 billion here, $1 billion there might add up, but a dollar here, a dollar there does not really make any difference.

Let us look at this specific legislation. I know in terms of relevance the Speaker would want me to do that. The redefinition of advertising as a service instead of a good is contrived.

My background is in sales and marketing. I am very well aware of the fact that one may purchase some plastic and put some lights behind it and that is called an illuminated sign. One may go to a magazine or a newspaper publisher and purchase a certain amount of blank space and then go to an advertising agency which will perform the service of actually creating what is going to be going on that piece of paper. To suggest that it is a service to provide a piece of blank paper that will appear with whatever one chooses to put on it is such a stretch, that the bill falls on its nose right there.

Most onerous though in this bill is the fact that it creates a new class of investigator. The province of Quebec has language police. I guess the minister has learned something from the province of Quebec because now under this legislation we are going to have a magazine police force. This is really beyond the pale.

As I mentioned with respect to the blank tape levy, the legislation the minister managed to push through did say that all Canadians who purchased blank tapes obviously were going to be doing something illegal and therefore they were guilty and should pay a fee. In this particular case the minister goes one step further and actually creates a magazine police force.

Into the hands of this minister, providing she does not get her UNESCO appointment before this comes through, we find that the minister will also be able to make trade law by order in council. That is a direction the Liberals absolutely love. The Liberals do not like the inconvenience of the democratic process which takes place in this House. The Liberals like to pass legislation so that they will be able to go behind cabinet doors, behind closed doors, with advice from nameless bureaucrats and concoct whatever laws they want without having to come back to this place where the people of Canada through their elected representatives such as myself and the other 300 members in this House, have a say in the democratic process.

In addition this bill puts print media under federal jurisdiction. It is ultra vires of parliament. We cannot just simply say that in 1867 we happened to forget that what we wanted to do was to put print media under the control of parliament so therefore we are going to arbitrarily do that with this particular law.

This law, if it was not so serious, would be funny. This law is ultra vires of the fundamental freedoms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sections 2, 7 and 8 and the Canadian Bill of Rights 1960, section 1. This law violates especially the freedoms of expression, the press and association provided for in both statutes and the enjoyment of property provisions in the Canadian Bill of Rights 1960 and common law.

It also violates charter security rights under sections 7 and 8. The freeze on business in clause 21 deprives affected corporations of future property and the effect of the entire bill is to hobble publishers' ability to enter into contracts.

The minister really enjoys her version of Canadiana. She certainly comes across as a very sincere and earnest person. With a feeling of generosity I am prepared to give that the minister actually believes in what she is doing. I think she really does believe in what she is doing.

The difficulty is that we are not in 1867. The last time I looked the date on the calendar was 1998. This government and its predecessor the Conservatives have entered into international trading agreements that impact my friend's wheat, the auto pact and the entire trade we do around the world.

It should be noted that we trade on a daily basis with the United States alone over $1 billion a day back and forth. What is the size of the cultural trade? The size of the cultural export in Canada is slightly under $1 billion. I am not talking about only magazines. I am talking about television, recordings, publishings, our authors and everything in the entire cultural component. By taking this one tiny section, $350 million of revenue, what this minister is doing is throwing it to the wind.

As I understand it, not if but when this bill is trashed by the World Trade Organization because it is so flawed, we will end up with the situation that we will have punitive action against us by our most significant trading partner. It will be able to take that punitive action in whatever field it so chooses. It could be against steel from Hamilton. It could be against computers from Kanata. It could be against wheat from the west. It could be against softwood lumber from British Columbia. It could be against nickel in Newfoundland if it every gets going.

The point is that this bill is so egregiously flawed. There can be no question that this bill will be struck down. What we are doing is inviting retaliation against the entire package of imports and exports that Canada is involved in. For what? For a misguided attempt on the part of the heritage minister to protect something that cannot be protected in this way.

I reflect back on Mr. Corcoran's column. If we take a look at what has happened historically in Canada, when we have permitted true free trade we have ended up seeing what Canadians are capable of doing which is to rise to the top to become the best in the world.

As an example, the revenue minister might recall that in the Okanagan Valley there was subsidy on subsidy and protection for the wine industry. Some of our friends from Niagara will also remember that. At that time under the North American Free Trade Agreement or the FTA we ended up with having to trash those subsidies. The sky was going to fall. Everything was going to fall apart. Canadians are so good at anything we set our mind, hand and resources to that we now have quality wine in Canada that will compete with any wine anywhere in the world.

Why? Because we were forced away from the subsidies. We were forced away from the protection and we gave Canadians the opportunity to rise to the occasion and create the very best in the world.

It is this kind of protectionism by the Liberals who say my goodness, if we are not protecting, if we are not making sure there are subsidies or the government can have some control because after all the government knows best, it is this kind of smother love that creates mediocrity.

We have a very fundamental difference. The Reform Party of Canada believes in the excellence and the superiority of Canadians in anything they set their hands to. Just get the government out of their face. Get the government out of trying to smother, control and protect them.

Given the document the minister has brought forward, how in the world can that happen? First, she has come forward with legislation that is fundamentally flawed because she calls advertising a service instead of a good. The bill should fail on that one right off the bat. Second, she is coming forward with a magazine police force. I cannot imagine anything worse than having a bunch of cops around.

The minister may make trade law by order in council. She can go behind closed doors and make those laws. I hope she does get her UNESCO appointment before that happens. It is ultra vires of parliament. Nothing in section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 or case law puts print media under federal jurisdiction. She is reaching beyond the power of parliament. She is reaching beyond the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I cannot imagine any right thinking person who would come to this House, unless they happened to be taking lessons from the animals that were grazing in the front yard of this building yesterday, who would end up voting in favour of this legislation.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague's most excellent speech.

Earlier we heard from the parliamentary secretary that there was nothing in this legislation which would inhibit Canada from fulfilling its international trade obligations.

Does my colleague agree or disagree with what the parliamentary secretary said earlier on whether this bill does in fact affect Canada's opportunity to meet its international trade obligations?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a result of the World Trade Organization's striking down previous legislation. The bill does not fill the bill of being able to get around the restrictions of the World Trade Organization in any way, shape or form.

There can be no other answer than the bill will be struck down as being outside the control or ability of Canada to act in this way. The problem with that, in my limited knowledge of the World Trade Organization and the way these activities happen, is that if a bill or legislation is struck down and the affected country comes back with another piece of legislation that is also deemed to be inappropriate then the complainant, in this case the United States, would be able to pick off Hamilton steel, wheat, softwood lumber or be able to interfere with the auto pact.

Considering the severity of that, the challenge from the United States in the face of this unbelievably weak legislation leads me to a very deep level of concern.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of fallacies we just heard that I think ought to be corrected.

First, it should be noted by all members that even the WTO recognizes that advertising is a service and is to be treated as such. It falls under that agreement. To say otherwise is simply inaccurate.

Second, it was rather interesting that the member would mention the article that appeared in one of the dailies today. The author uses a government study and accepts one of its conclusions that such a scenario would generate so much more revenue. The same study reaches a conclusion that he does not share, therefore he does not agree with it. He cannot have it both ways.

Someone either accepts what a study says, all of it, or not. The person cannot pick and choose, which is what the author was doing to justify his premise. The member shares the premise that if foreign magazines were allowed to purchase advertising services in the country they could not or would not offer deeply discounted service. Therefore they would essentially skim that industry and cripple the Canadian periodical industry which is exactly what this bill intends to prevent.

I found it rather interesting that he would bring up the copyright matter. The matter of tape levy has not been decided by the copyright board. The member should be aware of that. To say otherwise is just not accurate.

What I found most fascinating about his raising the copyright legislation, Bill C-32 at the time, as he will remember from committee, is that what happened then is happening again here today.

The Reform Party of Canada, as he was talking about smother love, is so enamoured with things American that it builds a bogeyman and says if we do this, they will do that. They will quash us here and they will do this and that to other industries. It is prepared to treat cultural industries as second class industries in favour of others. We are not prepared to do that. As government, we will stand for Canadian values and Canadian culture with respect to our trade agreements.

The most fascinating thing about the member's bringing up the copyright debate is that the Reform Party, as today, was then isolated. It could not see beyond its blinkers that there are industries that have to be protected and promoted in this country.

When the crunch came, it was not even at the table. It left the table. It was isolated then. I suspect we will see through the committee studies of this bill it will be isolated then as well.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party was right on the split-run bill before it. We opposed the split-run bill and we were right, therefore we may be isolated but that does not stop us from speaking about what is the truth and what are the facts.

Second, with respect to the study, every study goes through a certain number of processes but a study arrives at a conclusion. It does not mean that a person cannot take a section of the study that is a valid exploration of certain detail and report on that exploration of detail and not arrive at the same conclusion as the authors of the study. The member's point is not well taken.

With respect to the issue of copyright and being isolated, I can report to this House very clearly that what occurred in that instance, because of the support of the Bloc Quebecois as the official opposition for the government of the day, it was in a position of having a hammer.

There was a collusion between the parliamentary secretary to the minister of the day and the lead hand for the Bloc Quebecois where there were meetings. This member will recall that there were informal meetings occurring in the hallway What are we going to do now? They came back to the table. They would then go through a little tap dance and then they would go back into the hall again.

I reached the point of absolute frustration because of the collusion between the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois to see that bill go through. It was one of the low points of my time in parliamentary life.

They did not even have the decency to go around the corner. They just went out of earshot to concoct what was going on.

Fortunately for the House the constituents of both those former members saw fit not to return them to the Chamber. I do not know whether it had anything to do with the kind of activity that was going on in the hallway, but the point is that I was not going to be part of that process. It was slanted in favour of the minister jamming Bill C-32 through the House.

The bill before us is cut out of exactly the same piece of cloth. The minister will see her backbenchers acting like grazing animals to make sure she gets the bill through.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately Bill C-55 is all about regulation. It is about Canadian content “Copps”. It saddens me to think that a fine Canadian performer like Bryan Adams, due to Canadian content rules brought down by the minister of heritage, is not considered a Canadian artist because he has produced in the United States. Shame on the minister. The government does not have the decency to recognize Canadian artists who are well known around the world because they produce in the United States or some other such thing. Enough of the Canadian content “Copps”. No more regulation. It does not help Canadian artists.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will state again, as I did in my speech, that the Reform Party is absolutely committed to the fundamental concept that Canadians as a nation and as individuals are the greatest nation and the greatest people in the world. Given a challenge, Canadians will always rise to the top. Canadians will always be superior. Canadians will always perform at a level far beyond what they even imagine.

All we need is for the Liberals to get out of smothering the initiative of Canadians with all sorts of unnecessary protection. We should be given freedom so that we can get on with the job of being the great people and the great nation we are.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-55 which reminds me of eating too much spicy sausage. It keeps coming back again and again. Just when we think cooler heads have prevailed and the Pepto-Bismol of the World Trade Organization has soothed the savage lining of the Liberal tummy, we find that it regurgitated. It comes back up from the bowels of somebody's desk. Here we are again in parliament debating a bill with new a number and a bit different tangent, Bill C-55 which was formerly Bill C-32.

We must do something. We must protect something. If we are honest about it, we all know in our hearts that Canadian culture does not need protection. It needs promotion. In this case we are discussing Canadian magazines but not just them. It is a broad cultural issue.

We need to understand that Canadian culture is worth promoting. It is worth unshackling from government regulation. This great country with its multitude of cultural facets is worth selling to the world. It is worth bragging about. It is worth telling others in the world that if they want a cultural experience par excellence Canada is a good place to find it.

Instead of a Canadian cultural minister admitting that she does not even know what Canadian culture is, Liberal members need to say that we have great Canadian culture. It has much variety. It goes from bagpipes to traditional dances, to native ceremonies, to opera, to whatever. We have the whole smorgasbord. It does not scare us on this side of the House to think that a smorgasbord is hard to digest. We think it is a wonderful thing. Canadians and others in the world think it is something to be proud of. It is a good thing. It does not give me indigestion and the rest of the world finds it very palatable.

I am in support of the Canadian cultural industry. It is a wonderful industry. It produces lots of jobs with a good future. They are not just hewers of wood or carriers of water. It is an expanding market. It has huge potential.

Whether it is in the computer industry, the animation industry, the newspaper industry as we are seeing on the front pages of our papers today, or the magazine industry, people want to come here and invest their money not because of protection but because they see it as a viable growing industry with a Canadian flavour that sells not only in Canada but around the world. My hat is off to this industry. Good for it. It is doing its job and I appreciate it.

We want to see this industry blossom and thrive, but what is the government's response? A press release of the minister indicated that only Canadian periodical publishers would be able to sell advertising services aimed primarily at the Canadian market to Canadian advertisers. In other words, any split-run magazines like Time or Sports Illustrated whose editorial content is similar to their foreign original will not be able to bring their wares into Canada and solicit advertising space to Canadian companies. That is pretty ironic.

I will leaf through the latest edition of Maclean's magazine. Let me just crack it open. This is supposedly our national magazine. On the first full page is a Jaguar commercial, one of those great Canadian corporations, I guess. Then there is the next one, a full page Toyota ad. That is good. I do not mind that. There is one from Sheridan, a good Canadian company. Then there is one from Continental Airlines Express and a full page for Scotch whiskey. That is good. Anyway on and on and on it goes.

The magazine attracts international advertisers with headquarters that may be in other countries. Why? It is not because they are forced to advertise. They are not forced to advertise. If they want to address Canadians they had better speak to Canadians and use Canadian magazines to do it. Nobody could tell Jaguar that if it wants to sell Jaguars to Canadians it should advertise in the Los Angeles Times or a Los Angeles daily newspaper.

People advertise in Canadian products because they think that somebody will read it and that somebody will be Canadian. They do not need to be told about that. It is just a natural business decision and that is what they are doing.

If we want to help Maclean's or any other magazine, we should make it so attractive to advertise and do business in Canada that no on in their right mind would consider not spending a portion of their international dollars on Canadian run magazines. We want to be able to convince them that doing business in Canada is good. That is the way to help the Canadian cultural industry.

A committee has been travelling around and meeting for months. It is wringing its collective hands about the future of professional hockey in Canada. We could argue it is a sporting event which is sort of cultural. I have always thought it was pretty much a part of the Canadian mosaic. I love Canadian hockey.

If we wanted to hurt Canadian hockey how would we do it? Over the last 25 years through successive free spending governments we have managed to drive the value of the Canadian dollar down to 64 cents. I use the royal we here. I am including myself only because, I guess, I was a voter at that time. As much as many Canadians were upset about it, the spiral of debt and deficit financing for years and years and years created an atmosphere in Canada that has driven our dollar down to 64 cents.

Guess what? Some Canadian businesses are in trouble over that. A hockey player has to be paid in American currency. What will happen? Canadian hockey teams, the ones situated in Canada, cannot hang on to their best players. They are paid in American dollars. Our dollar is in the toilet. Their dollar is sky high because of differing policies.

In this sense our cultural activity is heading south. What a shame. One after the other Canadian markets are being shut down. We cannot compete primarily because of the dollar. Our arenas are full. Hockey programs are full. Television networks are willing to sell it. The bottom line is we cannot compete because our business structure is so out of whack in Canada that people cannot refuse a much better offer in the States.

Earlier we talked about the wine industry in my province. It wins awards around the world, not because it is subsidized. In fact it did not happen until the subsidy was removed. It tore out all the old grapes. It tore out all the old orchards that were heavily subsidized. It planted a market driven grape, if we want to call it that, which I am told produces a wine that is—and I am not a wine drinker—one of the best in the world. British Columbia is sold and touted around the world as one of the finest places to grow wine. That is not a cultural activity but it is another example of people going where the good product is, not necessarily where the subsidies are.

Again and again when Canadians are allowed to trade freely and are unencumbered by government they do pretty well. We are not going to win all the battles. It is not like 100% of the game is always won 100% of the time by Canadians.

Another prime example is the softwood lumber agreement. The parliamentary secretary mentioned earlier that the Reform Party was isolated on the softwood lumber agreement. We were the only party in the House that stood and said “Warning, if you follow through on this you are going to put hundreds and thousands of people out of work”. Nobody listened. We were told we were all by ourselves over here and asked if we understood that the magnanimous government was to put together some trading, not free trade but an agreement that restricts trade to a few quota holders and so on. The government was to manage it and tell us what could be sold.

In my riding every innovative softwood mill will be shut down. Most of them are shut down now and they will all be shut down within a year. It is a sad prediction. Every time they create a new value added product they are told “Sorry, you cannot sell it because of the softwood lumber agreement”, no matter what they do or how inventive they are.

They have even tried to saw boards into boards for little retaining walls to hold landscaping in place. There is a huge market for them in the United States. Even though it is a new product and a value added product, because they are joined together and treated, guess what? “Park it in your warehouse as you are not allowed to sell it”. Why? Because the government tells them what they can do.

It is not free trade. It is not access to a market with 300 million people. It is a market that says the government knows best. The mills in my riding have been told one after another “So, you have millions of dollars invested. So, you are opening markets in new value added products. We will shut all that down”.

What we end up with is a guy who saws 2x4s and ships them in bulk. He gets to keep shipping. However, the fellow that is putting energy and creativity into the value added product and doing what we have been told is the future, the right thing to do, has been told to shut down his business down and lose his investment. That is what happens when there is interference.

To get back to the example on the cultural side, the federal government is saying that to promote Canadian culture and to make it stronger it has to use its legislative muscle to keep Canadian magazines from international competition, which we believe Canada can and has met in the past and will again in the future.

I would argue that Bill C-55 is not needed. I cannot in my wildest imagination think that because of some advertising content or a split-run edition I am going to rush off and change my subscription to Canada's national magazine because somebody from Los Angeles has a magazine with Wayne Gretzky on the cover.

Do Canadians not have enough grey matter to understand the difference between advertising and what they want to read? When I look at the table of contents I want to read how things affect Canadians. I am not going to find an American magazine that states “Canada, the high stakes tug of war on the environment. Nova Scotia's Liberals on shaky ground”. I kind of like that one. I read it twice because it was a good one.

Canada's involvement in Kosovo, what is our future in Kosovo? What is going to happen to businesses like Northern Telecom and Nortel? Those are Canadian questions I would like to have answered. What is happening in health care with the waiting lists and so on, which was largely caused by this government? I would like to read about that.

I would like to read book reviews about Canadian authors and Canadian subjects. The reason I get that magazine is it deals with Canadian issues. I do not dial up CNN on my television because I think it would be great to listen to some announcer from Chicago tell me about the weather patterns in Florida. I dial in Canadian programming because I want to listen to Canadian stuff that affects me as a Canadian. I do not need advertising dollars to make me do that. I do it because it is the right thing to watch.

As I mentioned earlier, guess what happens in this magazine? International organizations repeatedly advertise in a Canadian magazine with Canadian content not because they are told they have to but because the realize that Canadians read it. If it is garbage it should not be subsidized or protected. It basically can put out the same magazine 12 months of the year because nobody reads it anyway. If that what we have here it does not matter how much regulation is put on it because it will not sell. Canadians will not buy it and advertisers will not advertise in it. Nobody will care because the magazine is not worth reading.

However, if the magazine deals with Canadian issues the advertisers will advertise. If you build it, they will come, culturally speaking. That is what will happen. They are looking for good quality magazines so they can say show us the product and we will advertise in it. Anybody who thinks differently has not looked at the latest Maclean's magazine. They are certainly not thinking on a whole realm of things, why, for example, Canadian Gardener might be of more interest to the latest gardening schemes in southern Florida.

Since that stuff does not grow in my garden I will not buy that magazine because I want the magazine to deal with Canadian stuff. Most Canadians understand the difference between reading about the latest adobe styles in southern California and the fact that west coast architecture is a little different. They understand it and gravitate to it because it is what they want to read. It is not because it is supported by advertisers.

One wonders why the federal government is putting so much energy and resources into this kind of initiative, an initiative that unfortunately may backfire again at the World Trade Organization as it did last time. One wonders why this government thinks that putting this misplaced energy into protecting the split-run magazines is a vote getter or whatever.

We have a $1.4 billion a day trade deal with the Americans and it has been growing rapidly since NAFTA and the free trade agreement and now expanded to the WTO. They are our best trading partners. Contrary to what the Liberals tried to sell us in 1993, they realized as soon as they were in power, within about two weeks they signed an agreement saying that Canada's economic well-being was based on access to the 300 million person U.S. market. They signed the agreement, as we knew they would and as we said they would in 1993 when we campaigned against them.

I remember the Liberals standing at an all-candidates meeting and saying—in our case it was article 2(c) of the World Trade Organization agreement which dealt with supply management—“we will never sign that without a strengthened article 2(c), you can count on it”.

The Liberal candidate I was running against said “I would lay on the railroad tracks and stop the trains before we would sign that”.

Two weeks after the Liberals were elected in 1993 guess what? The Liberals signed the agreement. Guess what? Article 11 (2)(c) is just the way it was when the Conservatives negotiated it. I warned our farmers not to trust these guys. As it turned out I was absolutely right. This government did exactly as I knew it would and it signed the agreement.

Why? Because we live in an international rules based trading economy. The government is half way there, half pregnant. The government sort of wants to go but does not know what the gestation period is. This government wants to do it but does not want to admit it. It is sort of free trade but it cannot simply come out and say it.

It is like the reciprocity campaign of 1911. Interestingly the Liberals at that time said the future lies in reciprocity. The future lies in free trade because Canadians can take on the Americans at their game and can win our share and more. We have enough assets to pull it off, human and otherwise.

There is $1.4 billion of trade between Canada and the U.S. and what are we doing? In one minute we are poking the Americans in the eye. We are saying “oh yeah, watch this”. We are telling the Americans let's go, let's go. We are taking on our best trading partner and saying let's go to the WTO. They are going to win again. The Americans will come back and kick our sorry economy all over the map because of this.

When the Americans win this the second time, the second time means they come back and the softwood lumber industry in my riding could be affected. It could be grain shipments into the States. It might just be magazines and cultural activities. But it could be anything.

I can imagine the American negotiators saying “Oh boy, the election is coming up. Get a little presidential butt kicking going here. Let us see what we can do to those Canadians because we won it again. Let us pick our spot. What is the best vote getter? Let's knock the snot out of those Canadians for being lippy again for the second time when they knew full well and they were warned by the official opposition that this was going to happen”.

Some American presidential candidate is going to use the opportunity of a WTO ruling on this bill and they are going to come back and hurt Canada bad for political reasons. That is a shame. It is unnecessary and should not be happening. This bill should not pass.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague was getting to a very important part of his speech regarding what might happen in retaliation to this law which will obviously be struck down.

The member mentioned the softwood lumber industry. I know there are other industries as well. I and the official opposition are concerned about that as well. We are on record as forewarning the government it is venturing out on very dangerous ground by proceeding with this bill.

I and members of the opposition cannot understand why it is that the government would take this measure. I am wondering if my colleague might comment on some of the other industries as well as the softwood industry that he feels might be affected by this agreement if it is defeated again, and it likely will be.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one needs a crystal ball to know what the WTO might rule. The WTO might say it has had a complete change of heart. All the rationale it used before will just be thrown out and suddenly it will have an epiphany, a change, a road to Damascus experience. The WTO might but I do not think so.

The WTO body has said argue as you might, folks in Canada. It is unfair to treat people differently on your trade laws.

It is not an industry that needs protection. It is going to rule the same way again.

It is interesting how we want to have our cake and eat it too. There is a reciprocity agreement over there. They want a free trade agreement except they do not want a free trade agreement.

One Canadian publisher, the proprietor of Saturday Night , said this about Bill C-55: “I have been a relentless opponent of these restrictive rules all the time. I have been in business nearly 30 years. I am opposed to the restrictions that representatives of the magazine are advancing on American publications. We have been well received in those foreign countries, the U.K., the U.S.A. and Israel, where we do business. Canada should behave as those other countries do”.

Other countries say to Canada “If our guys want to advertise in your magazines and you want to sell into our markets go ahead. It is not a bad magazine and you are going to penetrate our market a bit, but some of our people like to read about Canadian stuff. Some of them are transplanted Canadians. Some of them want to go to Canada”. There is a market. Sell into that market. What an opportunity.

We have 30 million people, a little country by world standards. Somebody says to us that in their country there are 200 million, 300 million or a billion people like in India and they will let us sell into their market. What we should be saying is thanks for the opportunity to expand our business. Thank you for letting us sell into their market. Let us hope for a .5% market penetration. All of a sudden the circulation on the Canadian magazine goes through the roof. With a free trade access like that there is access to billions of people.

Instead, Canada wants to keep Canadian magazines in Canada and get a 10% market penetration on 30 million people. There will be three million people who have ever seen the magazine. It will never be more than that. The business is restricted. It cannot expand. We will not let it expand. It is the tit for tat thing in international trade. If they will not let us go into their markets we will not let them come into ours. That is the deal.

Worse than that, under the WTO arrangement it understands that other countries may choose to retaliate, but not on the magazine. They might say they were willing to let the magazine come in. It is not that big of a deal and there will be some market penetration. But may the best magazine win. They are willing to try that. They are willing to offer that. They may come back and say they have had trouble with our textile industry because it takes them on and beats them half the time. So they get back at the Canadian government for its intransigence by countervailing on textiles. Or they might come back to the softwood lumber agreement that has already put thousands of people out of jobs in my province and expand it a little. They might put another tariff on top of all of that.

Because the Asian market has gone into decline, our primary market is in America right now for software lumber and a lot of our grains. What if they came up and said that the wheat does not go south of that border, that imaginary 49th parallel on the map? They tell us to keep our wheat. They give their subsidies to their farmers, pump them up and get them in business. But that industry is going to suffer because of a magazine bill.

What kind of a strained logic on that side over there would say they are going to take this to the WTO, poke the people in the eyes until they get them nice and mad like boiled owls. They are going to be all claws, beaks, feathers and scratches. They are going to come out of there like a broken helicopter. They will come out of there mad. They will say “did we not deal with the split-run issue once already?”. A similar panel is going to get this. It will not have an epiphany, a road to Damascus experience.

It is going to wake up with the same logic that was brought into that next one. It is going to crack open the magazine and say “Guess what folks, the rules are the same as the last time and will be the same the next time, but there will not be a next time because we ruled in favour of the plaintiff”.

Instead of creating jobs in Canada and encouraging diversity and saying to the world “Come on world, we are ready. We can take you on, on our terms”, we will catch it in the ear in an industry that is innocent of what the government is doing. Industry will take the retaliation. What a shame. If it comes on one of the industries in my riding, I do not know what it will do to the federal buildings in my riding as there are not many left in my riding anyway because they have all been transferred to Liberal ridings elsewhere. They will be some upset and I understand why.

Maybe the minister of culture figures she has not had enough of the spotlight lately. Maybe she wants to by all stretches of the imagination make a run at the Liberal leadership one day or maybe she is trying to get her name in the paper, who knows?

[An hon. member]

This is as good as the MMT legislation.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. It reminds me of another time when the official opposition was isolated. It had to do with the MMT legislation.

We sat on this side of the House and begged the government not to put restrictive legislation on that octane enhancer for those who are not familiar with the issue. We said that if the government did that, the government would be taken to court and would have to pay because it had not tabled the evidence in this place which showed that it should be restricted. What did the government do? It thumbed its nose at the official opposition. That is fine.

Liberals do not agree with us because they like to be wrong a good part of the time. They did not agree with us and what happened? I wonder if the Liberal caucus even had a discussion about this. Guess what happened. Back it came. It did not go to court though. We settled out of court. Tens of millions of dollars were given to the Ethyl Corporation, an American corporation.

The government said that for whatever these dollars were worth, and the dollar is not worth that much, it being down to 64 cents, as much as we can gather together we will throw at Ethyl Corporation. Why? Because members over there do not believe in free trade. They mouth the words when it suits them and the rest of the time they restrict business; they put them under their thumb. Business that could be thriving and adding value is told it is not welcome in Canada.

Tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars went to pay Ethyl Corporation in an out of court settlement. I wonder if the Liberal caucus had a little talk about that with their minister. I wonder if they said that the Reform Party was right, again. Yes, we were isolated on that and we were right again.

On Bill C-55 and the split-run magazine issue, we will be proven right again. The Liberals will come whining back into this House. The favourite whine on the Liberal side is “I want to tax and put on some more red tape”.