Debates of Oct. 29th, 1998

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter into this debate on this piece of legislation which has been so clearly illustrated by the official opposition as lacking in so many ways and so many areas. I will focus my comments on a few points. There are so many comments I would like to get on the record that I am afraid I might not have a chance to get them all on but I will try.

Some particular portions of Bill C-55 should be very alarming for everybody in this place, particularly the section which goes into establishing an investigative branch that can explore people who violate this law. That violation would be Canadian advertisers selling advertisements to American magazines and things of that sort.

There are a lot of problems in our country. There are a lot of things happening. I know that this government wants to address the serious issues in our country. We would think and hope that. After all, it is the Government of Canada.

Instead what we see is a bill being presented which simply addresses one issue of magazines. We can only imagine that it might be because the minister of heritage is not getting into the spotlight very much in the last little while and needs, as one of my colleagues pointed out earlier, a reason to justify her department and what she is doing there. Perhaps that is why she has created this bill.

I know that in Vancouver there are some serious problems going on. This bill would introduce some police force powers to individuals to investigate the selling of advertising in magazines. I do not think that is an issue that is resonating across the country. I am not getting calls in my office about this issue. I am getting calls about a lot of other issues. I am getting calls in my office about a serious drug problem happening in Vancouver, about problems with the immigration system and the government's refusal to address those kinds of problems. I am getting calls in my office about cuts to the RCMP budgets in British Columbia and how that is having a profound impact on every citizen in British Columbia and across the country.

Yet this government sees fit to introduce a bill that was defeated once already by the WTO ruling. This government knows that, yet it is proceeding with this. It does not make any sense as to why the government would clearly go ahead again with this type of bill which cannot stand on its own merits. That has been proven and it is going to happen again.

If a government brings forward a bill, we would expect it would check into what might be the ramifications of enacting the legislation. The government knows that a similar bill was defeated once before. It knows what the ramifications were when it was defeated, when it was appealed and lost at the WTO. Yet the government has gone ahead again. We would think the government might have caught on that this is not a bill that is going to be able to do what it is intended to do.

The government says that we need to protect Canadian culture. We say we need to promote Canadian culture. We have heard government members who want it both ways.

Members of the Liberal government who were in opposition at the time spoke long and hard against free trade. Yet when they formed the government in 1993 they rapidly signed that agreement. We see here with this bill the true colours of where the Liberals stand on trade. They are not really supportive of a free trade agreement that would allow for the movement of goods and services across the border to our biggest trading partner and we are trading over $1 billion per day. In this bill the minister of heritage is putting forth a protectionist act.

It is very clear and it has been demonstrated before. We have been pointing it out all day long and in past days as well. We will continue to say it and forewarn the government of what might happen by the actions of this bill. The government has to get the message on this.

If the heritage minister really wanted to do something for Canadian magazines she would listen to one of her colleagues. The minister of defence said in a speech on January 27, 1997, “Perhaps in the new digital world policies of cultural promotion make more sense than traditional policies of protection”. What a surprise. One of the minister's own colleagues gave some good advice which she obviously has not heeded.

Perhaps there is quite a stir going on in cabinet. We can only imagine what is happening. The Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Industry and perhaps the Minister of Finance in talking to the Minister of Canadian Heritage might be saying “What in the world are you doing with this? We lost it once before. We are going to lose it again and there are some pretty serious ramifications”. But no, she is going ahead with the bill in the face of its obvious inadequacies.

The minister is putting at risk industries in our country, people in our country, workers in our country who face possible retaliation when this is struck down once again by the WTO. We heard the parliamentary secretary say that this will go through the WTO, that we have met all the obligations, that everything is fine and not to worry about it. I would disagree.

I will mention a few remarks in response to this bill when it was introduced. These remarks were released in Geneva by the U.S. trade representative in response to Bill C-55, the bill we are debating today which was introduced by the minister of heritage. He said:

On October 8, the Canadian government introduced a bill in parliament that, if enacted, would ban foreign-owned publishers from using the magazines they publish to carry any advertisement aimed primarily at Canadian consumers.

Unfortunately, it leaves foreign-produced split-run periodicals precisely where they have been for the past 30 years—shut out of the Canadian market.

What is also disturbing about the bill is that it apparently represents Canada's idea of compliance with the panel and Appellate Body reports on this subject.

Canada seems to believe that while it may violate the GATT for a government to confiscate 80 percent of the advertising revenues generated by imported split-run magazines, it is perfectly acceptable to ban those advertisements altogether.

That was the trade representative for the United States. We are not looking into a crystal ball and saying that we think this might happen, that the Americans might voice opposition to this bill. One of their senior people is saying what they are going to do, yet this government still proceeds with this bill. I will continue to quote this representative:

Canadian officials are justifying their new bill on the grounds that it is governed by the anti-discrimination provisions of the GATS rather than the GATT. Conveniently, Canada has made no commitments regarding advertising under the GATS.

It is surprising that Canada would believe its GATT v GATS argument which the panel and the Appellate Body so soundly rejected in 1997 has taken on credibility in 1998.

Why are the same arguments which were defeated previously now being put forward as valid? The U.S. trade representative mentioned this. He continued:

The clear and intended effect of Canada's proposed legislation is to prevent imported magazines from being used to carry advertisements aimed at the Canadian market.

This is precisely what Canada's 80 percent tax prevents as well.

Taken together, the bill introduced on October 8, and the perpetuation of Canada's postal subsidy scheme, which the Canadian Government has also announced, send a very troubling signal regarding Canada's seriousness in abiding by its international obligations and, in particular, in observing both the letter and spirit of the WTO's dispute settlement rules.

For well over a year Canada steadfastly refused to disclose any of the alternatives it was considering or to consult with interested governments regarding its compliance.

Then, after dragging out its response for almost 15 months, the Canadian Government has suddenly announced proposed replacement measures that are still discriminatory and protectionist.

We strongly urge Canada to reconsider the course it has chosen. the United States intends to react vigorously if that is not the case.

If this government will not listen to members of the opposition, perhaps it will listen to the American representatives who have the power and the ability to go ahead and challenge the WTO agreement. They have announced—

[An hon. member]

Phone the ambassador.

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

Mr. Speaker, members opposite are not interested in listening. They do not want to listen to advice. They want to heckle; they want to read papers. They are not interested. They are not interested in the concerns of Canadians. They do not want to listen to any advice because they think they have it all worked out. They say “Everything is fine, throw us the keys, we will drive the bus, do not worry about it”.

We on this side of the House are not going to do that. We are not going to toss them the keys and let them drive the car off the road as they have done the last 30 years, with a few intermissions. No, we are going to point out the deficiencies in their bills.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Go ahead.

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

The member says “Go ahead”. If he had put his paper down long enough he might have heard some of the earlier comments.

There are obviously problems with this bill. They have been pointed out by members of the opposition, and not just by the official opposition but by other parties as well. U.S. trade representatives have said that there are problems with this bill. They have clearly signalled their intention to challenge it.

When they challenge this and win is when the trouble will start for the industries across this country. We do not know where the retaliation will take place, whether it will be western Canadian grain producers or an industry in Ontario.

There are over 100 members of the Liberal caucus representing Ontario. I would have thought they would have some concerns about this. I do not see members standing on the opposite side voicing their concerns. They will have to pay the price when this legislation goes through, when the challenge is made and this bill is soundly defeated in the World Trade Organization as being unfair, discriminatory and protectionist, as it most obviously is.

It is the members opposite who will be responsible. They will have to answer. They have been forewarned, as they have been forewarned on many things before but have not taken the advice. Unfortunately, they do not like to take advice from members of the official opposition. We know that.

However, we would hope that in the interests of Canada, in the interests of their constituents, in the interests of all of our industries across this country that they would have a plan of action before putting something in place. We would hope that they would take a look at the legislation they are bringing forward to see how it will impact the people of this country and the economy of this country.

I might add that we are seeing the Canadian dollar dropping.

The government is responsible in a large way for providing an economic climate to allow industries to grow.

We see this government introducing this type of bill rather than dealing with some other major priorities that we have been asking it to address.

I have to remind my colleagues opposite that this bill is badly flawed. I think members opposite know that.

It is one thing to proceed on a course of action, whatever it might be, if we truly believe something to be so, and to proceed on that course of action that will provide some benefit in the future. It is another thing to proceed on a course of action when we know full well that that course of action is not a good course of action, that there are obstacles in the way, that it will not be of benefit. There are other terms to describe that way of thinking.

I cannot understand why the government is proceeding in this manner, with this legislation, in a way that will imperil Canadians working in many other fields across the country. We do not know what the retaliation is going to be.

I simply do not understand why it is that we would proceed to try to disrupt, maybe unintentionally—and I will give the government the benefit of the doubt—and to aggravate our biggest trading partner on this issue. They can obviously retaliate in a number of ways. It could affect the softwood lumber industry in my province of British Columbia. It could affect those involved in farming, in the prairies in particular.

My father-in-law is a former farmer. These are the people who are talking about what it is we are dealing with in this place. What are the government's priorities? That is what I hear from people when I talk to them about what is happening in this place.

They do not ask me about the minister of heritage and Bill C-55, and what a great impact that will have on their daily lives. They are not raising those concerns.

It is just unbelievable that in the face of good advice somebody would proceed in a way that would not benefit the country. The governing party is responsible for setting out a course for the country. I do not see that happening in this piece of legislation. What I see is exactly the opposite.

I can only encourage the members of the government who are here today and the government in general to re-look this piece of legislation to see the potential damage that it could cause. They should do the right thing and not proceed with it, but proceed in other areas of priority across this land.

We hope that members of the government will reconsider moving on this bill and not stubbornly move ahead on a piece of legislation that is doomed for failure.

I hear loud heckling from members opposite. I am sad to say that, once again, it looks as though a few of the members are not even willing to listen. That is upsetting, not to me because I am used to it, but it is upsetting to the people of Canada, their constituents.

This bill is just not going to work.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

The members continue to heckle. They seem to have no interest in wanting to listen to good advice, but that is their prerogative. They laugh at good advice. They laugh at a serious issue that is going to affect a lot of industries, not just in my riding but in their ridings right across this country. What do they do? They sit in their seats and laugh. We must surmise that they are laughing at Canadians because this bill will impact Canadians across the country.

I would hope that instead of laughter we might hear intelligent debate in this place from members on the other side, because we know it is coming from this side. We would like to hear some other ideas from members opposite because this one is simply not a good idea.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to start. That was one single argument, repeated 1,500 times. I guess repetition does not necessarily make an argument any better, but we will leave that for another day.

I want to comment a bit on some of the comments made by the member for Fraser Valley. He was touting a magazine and quoting from it, telling us that he liked to read Canadian stories in Canadian magazines. We all agree. He then made a statement to the effect that he does not need advertising. We all know that, but that is the point of the bill.

For him to be able to read those Canadian magazines and read those Canadian stories, those magazines need advertising dollars. That is the point of this legislation. I think he might be starting to understand.

One of the longstanding policies of the Government of Canada has been to help the magazine industry in securing enough advertising dollars by not helping split runs. If we allow foreign magazines without any Canadian content, without any expenses on that side, to come and skim advertising dollars and services, then we will indeed cripple our Canadian magazine industry.

It is rather heartening to see that one of the members of the Reform Party understands that somebody might need advertising dollars in order to put out these magazines. That is the purpose of the bill. We hope to get it through second reading and to committee and, with the help of the opposition parties, we will move on.

I have listened to all of the speeches from Reform members and there is a theme coming out. I thought initially it might have been sheepishness on their part in that they were raising these bogeymen. They say that we are poking our American neighbours in the eye and they are going to retaliate. They say that we should not aggravate them because they will then come around and kill our wheat industry, the hog industry and softwood lumber. They threw in hockey and a lot of other things.

Maybe I was not accurate about them being sheepish, because the more I listened the more things came out, such as “We should listen more to the American trade secretary saying this and that. We will not win. We will go to the WTO and they will quash it”. It seems that members of the Reform Party are not here to defend Canadian interests. They seem to be here to defend American interests. They seem to be defending anything that is foreign, but not Canadian.

We want to help an industry that has grown over the past 30 years, an industry which consists of 1,000 small businesses and employs over 6,000 Canadians.

Reform members are giving me the impression that they may not be sheepish, but they seem to be Americans in sheep's clothing.

[The Speaker]

I know with all of those sheep in there that there was a question. I am going to give the hon. member a chance to comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was trying hard to detect a question, as I know you were.

The hon. member mentioned that I repeated things several times. I must admit that I did repeat things several times because I was hoping that the message would get through. Obviously it has not.

What we are talking about here is a protectionist measure that the government is putting in place. The parliamentary secretary, and I think he knows it, tries to paint Reform in a light that is just simply not accurate.

With respect to my comments about the American trade representative, in fact this is something that he stated will happen. This is a high ranking official saying that they are going to go ahead and challenge this. It was defeated once before. To not address that, to not give that some weight in their considerations before moving ahead I think is just unwise. That is why I made the comment. It was made to let the government know that this is a weak piece of legislation. It is going to be challenged. The government is going to lose. It lost once before. That is the reason I mentioned it.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, very quickly, Canadians value freedom of contract. This bill authorizes the Minister of Canadian Heritage to make trade law without going through regulation.

I am looking at this from the standpoint of an advertiser. An advertiser wants certainty in terms of planning their advertising dollars. There is no certainty when we have a ministerial prerogative such as that. Besides not liking it as a parliamentarian, I am thinking of it as an advertiser.

I would like my colleague to comment on that aspect of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a concern. This bill of course limits who Canadian advertisers are going to be able to put their advertising dollars with. I do not understand that principle. That is a principle that seems contrary to other government policy, particularly in light of free trade. So I simply do not understand.

I mentioned that the bill is weak in a number of areas. The area that my colleague points out I did not mention. Absolutely it is a problem. There should be freedom of the press and freedom of individuals to go ahead and advertise with whomever they like.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will just make a few comments and ask a short question to conclude this debate.

This debate really is about democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. On the opposition benches it is about trying to keep the government out of trouble. We have heard the arguments that were aired in terms of retaliation.

The reality of North American society is that we depend on the Americans for a healthy economy. There are two things we agree on. One is that Canadians love Canadian content in whatever they hear, read or watch. I am sure all sides of the House agree to that. The other statement I can make is that our economy depends on that of the United States. We are fortunate with the Asian flu that the American economy probably shelters us from a greater impact in light of the weak dollar in this country. Those are the two points that I am sure we all agree on.

On the issue of freedom of speech I believe that when the bill becomes law it will be subject to the courts' judgment. As soon as it becomes law the private sector will take it to the courts. There is no doubt about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to comment on the important points made by my colleague. I hope the government is listening to them.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill is weak and my colleague has pointed out another weakness. I know he is the critic for the area. He has studied the legislation in depth. He has tried to make interventions with the minister to advise her that this is not a good way to proceed. It was not for his own gain but because he sees this piece of legislation as flawed. This is another flaw.

There will be problems with the legislation. There will be some court challenges because the bill limits the rights of Canadian advertisers to advertise where they would like to advertise. That is clearly infringing on people's freedoms. We hope the government will listen to the points that we make before proceeding on this course.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for the last hour or so I have been somewhat appalled by the cavalier attitude of the parliamentary secretary and some of his yappy cohorts toward the well-being and the opportunities that may be lost to earn a living by tens of thousands of Canadians who will be affected if we get ourselves into a trade war over this stupid piece of legislation. This is not a joke.

People are frightened as to what may happen if this position is overturned by the WTO, and I think it probably will be. We will be vulnerable. We will be open. To use a certain amount of care is not, with due respect, being sheepish. It is being sane and sensible. The bill can really hurt.

The parliamentary secretary says that 6,000 people will be directly affected by the legislation. I question that. There are 6,000 people working in the industry. There are not 6,000 people who will be directly affected by the legislation because we are dealing with a rather small segment of the magazine market. This is not as big an issue as the parliamentary secretary would like to make out. The potential for damage from this unimportant piece of legislation is enormous.

It behooves the parliamentary secretary to be a little more thoughtful and respectful of the hundreds of thousands of people employed in basic industries such as the agricultural industry. They are vulnerable. They have been attacked before by the Americans under trade rules. In some cases those who study this sort of thing are quivering in their shoes.

I used to have a very large German shepherd—this is a true story by the way, not a parable—that I kept fenced in my backyard. There was a little boy in the neighbourhood, who was not a bad kid, who could not resist tormenting my dog. He would go down the ally on his bicycle, run a stick along the fence and rattle the boards. Then he would get off his bicycle, look through the fence and torment my dog. One day he did that but did not realize that the back gate was open. This big dog ran out, grabbed the poor kid by the leg and gave him a pretty serious bite.

The United States is a very mean big dog. We should not torment this beast, unless we see some real benefit or some potential advantage in doing so, because he will bite. He has bitten us before and he will bite us again. We should not mess around for a trivial reason and endanger something which is terribly important to ordinary working people in this country. We can make light of this problem as much as we want, but it is not something to be taken lightly. These are very serious concerns.

We have walked down this road before on the split-run issue. We lost. If we lose a second time, the game is over and we are vulnerable for retaliation. Those guys play rough. I think a bit of common sense should be used.

Apart from the practicalities of the question, I get a little tired of members opposite who seem to believe that Canadians are children, that Canadians are incapable of managing their own affairs, that Canadians left to their own devices will buy out all the Playboy magazines in the cornerstore but will not read Saturday Night . This is rather a low view of our population but it seems to be what drives the government.

The hon. member beside me made a comment a little earlier about smother love. This is a typical example of smother love, trying to control what people read and what people hear. It is thought control. Nineteen Eighty-Four may not be very long behind us, but we still seem to have some of the ideas Mr. Orwell brought forward in his book.

Free speech, freedom to do business with whom we wish, freedom to own property and control it any way we like, free press by all means and freedom of contract, do these things not matter at all? Why are we throwing out these important aspects of our culture ostensibly to protect our culture? It is a contradiction of terms and I will not accept it.

I noticed earlier the hon. member for Brampton Centre, while my colleague was speaking, was very busily reading a newspaper. I did not notice what newspaper it was. However it occurred to me that hon. member probably would not be too happy if the media police or “Copps” cops were to say to him that he could not read that paper any more because it was published in the wrong city, never mind country. If they said they wanted him to read the Toronto Star whether or not he liked it and would pass legislation which would make, for example, the Ottawa Citizen sit up and take notice because it is not always very nice to the government, how would he feel?

I would like people to think about such things. Sure, it is a stretch but not a very long one because this is the sort of thing the government is proposing to do. It is telling Canadians what they may or may not read by using the big economic hammer on advertisers. This is shameful.

Extraterritorial legislation, which is what this is if we look at it closely, has a very bad smell in this country. Do members remember the Helms—Burton bill and how everyone from all parties was up in arms about it? Now we are coming up with our very own version of extraterritorial legislation and it is okay in the eyes of the Liberals.

Where are they coming from? Where is the consistency? Where is the basic concept of free trade which members of the government, having had their epiphany, claim now to support? They support it when it is convenient to them, but when it interferes with some of their elitist ideas they say “None of this free trade stuff”. That is bad.

I would like to relinquish the rest of my time to hear a little more from the hon. parliamentary secretary. I hope he will rise to the bait and debate.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was deeply affected by the story the member told about the little boy and the dog, but he left us dangling. My question to the member is very simple. What happened to the dog?

[An hon. member]

He shot the dog.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, actually I did not put the dog down. The parents of the boy were very understanding. They realized that the boy had been doing something he should not have been doing. He had been tempting fate so they said “It happened, it happened”. The dog lived to a ripe old age.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague deals with the way in which the bill changes how we look at split runs as opposed to the previous legislation.

The crux of the way the bill is different from the previous one in many respects is the changing of a definition by legislation. Indeed this is a very weak way to redefine something and ultimately very challengeable.

The bill has the effect of changing advertising from a service to a good. It is very construed and artificial. Would the member like to comment on that in an intellectual spirit?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we talked a few minutes ago about stretching things. I would submit that calling advertising a service rather than a good is an extremely long stretch.

I have purchased a lot of advertising and I never thought of it as a service. I was buying space in a piece of paper. That is a good. That is the principal reason that the legislation will be thrown out when it is challenged as it unquestionably will be challenged by the WTO.

We are trying to rewrite the English language by legislation. We cannot do that. Language is something fluid, but we cannot change the rules. We cannot change the language. Advertising is not a service. Advertising is a good. It is something we buy. We can touch it on the printed page. I am sorry, but I would have to say to my hon. colleague that this is the biggest weak point in the bill. This is why it is subject to challenge.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the member opposite. Is he aware that the WTO recognizes that advertising is a service?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the WTO recognizes that advertising agencies provide a service. The WTO does not recognize an advertisement, which is what we are talking about. That is what we buy. We buy an advertisement in a magazine. That is not a service. That is a good. The hon. member is equivocating.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, under subclause 20(c) of this bill the minister is authorized to make regulations respecting “criteria to determine whether advertising services are directed at the Canadian market”. This amounts to authorizing the Minister of Canadian Heritage to make trade laws without passing them through parliament. Will this undermine the authority of the House?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my response to my colleague is, what else is new?

When in living memory has this government ever passed any legislation that could not be abused in that way? Passing legislation with clauses that allow bureaucrats or people in the minister's department to step in and do whatever they please is the Liberal way.

I would not even answer my colleague's question directly except to say that the principle of what he is describing is despicable.

[The Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?