Debates of Feb. 23rd, 1998

Supply

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I must confess I was not aware that such a meeting was held in Winnipeg.

I think the simplest way to answer that question, although it evokes a number of responses, is just to reiterate the point that was made.

In negotiations, many things are broadly talked about but the commitment that has been made is at the end of negotiations this government will not sign on Canada's behalf an MAI that does not fully support key Canadian values and safeguard vital Canadian interests.

Health care is definitely one of those key Canadian values that every member on this side of the House will support.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like say how pleased I am to join in this debate today on the multilateral agreement on investment.

I do so in a number of capacities, as a member of the subcommittee on international trade disputes and investment and as a member of the standing committee on heritage.

Also, I rise today as a member of a riding that is home to many artists and individuals who are involved in the arts and cultural industry in Canada, a sector I am absolutely passionate about and care for very deeply.

I would like to start the debate by reiterating the key messages that the minister has been saying about the MAI. First, there is nothing mysterious or secretive about our involvement in the MAI negotiations. I believe that Canada has a duty to be there to protect that which is important to Canadians.

Second, if it can be achieved, a good and fair set of rules for international investment would in principle be a good thing for Canada.

Third, at the end of the negotiations, the minister will not sign on Canada's behalf an MAI that does not fully support key Canadian values and safeguard vital Canadian interests.

I would like to talk about one very important vital Canadian interest and Canadian value. That is the arts and cultural industry in Canada and what we as a government have been doing in consultation with the cultural sector and the individual actors, creators, writers, technicians, publishers who live in my riding.

We have been consulting with the minister. We have been going to the minister, having the minister's ear and the minister has been listening. Let me put that in the context of what I would ask all members to read, a report that was tabled at the Canadian Conference of the Arts by Garry Neil which sets out the problems with the original draft text that came out in May 1997.

In his report, Mr. Neil makes absolutely clear that according to that draft which was released, the cultural sector would be covered fully by the MAI as drafted in January 1997. Unfortunately I have to disagree with hon. members of the Reform Party that Canada can compete anywhere and in any sector, including the cultural sector. With all respect, they can only do so because of this government's cultural policy which advocates the creator and Canadian content and the infrastructure to take that Canadian content through the creator to our audiences in Canada. That has been our policy.

Mr. Neil goes on by saying that potentially with the January 1997 text as drafted, the MAI would affect in some way virtually every cultural policy. We may be able to compete today in children's programming for one reason alone, because we have a cultural policy that promoted children's programming.

Yes, we are world leaders in television programming for children. The Comfy Couch , Dudley the Dragon , things that our children and our grandchildren know about, have come about through one of those policies which has been the Canada cable and television production fund which is only given to Canadian companies. Those things would not have been created.

Let us see the impact the MAI in its 1997 form would have had on culture. Let us talk about what, if we had accepted that draft as written, it could potentially have done for culture. Particularly to Reformers who feel that culture should not be on the table, that it should just be part of this agreement, let me tell them what would happen.

Canada prohibits, limits or restricts foreign ownership in most of our cultural industries currently. For example, no foreign company can own more than one-third of a Canadian broadcaster or distribution undertaking, cable, satellite or otherwise.

The policy in the book trade generally prohibits a Canadian company from being sold to non-Canadian interests. The policy in film distribution prohibits a foreign company from establishing a new business in Canada, except to distribute its own productions.

Increased foreign ownership in the sound recording business is reviewed by investment Canada under the net benefits test. Ontario's periodical and publication distribution act and several Quebec statutes require Canadian ownership.

The other thing our government's policy does for culture is that funding programs are limited to Canadian individuals and firms. Access to most funding programs is denied to non-Canadian companies and individuals, for example funding support for film and television production activities through Telefilm, the provincial agency. The Canada Council is limited to Canadian firms.

If taxation is carved into the MAI, the support through the refundable investment tax credit and the companion provincial schemes are also at risk. The CRTC has been mandated by this government for the creation of private sector production and talent support programs in both the television and sound recording industries by directing licences to provide certain percentages of revenues for these purposes. These programs are generally not available to foreign firms.

Let us look at the book publishing industry development program, the block grant program of the Canada Council and the publication assistance program. They are limited to Canadian book and magazine publishers. Access is also limited to many funds that support new media productions, again limited to Canadian firms. The cultural industries development fund, administered by the former federal business development bank, provides assistance only to Canadian firms.

However, since the definition of investor in the MAI includes organizations and associations operated on a not for profit basis, direct and indirect funding of these activities may be subject to challenge if access is denied to a foreign association or organization having a Canadian presence or asset. Let us look at the Canadian content requirements. For a television program to qualify under Canadian content, the producers of that material must be Canadian.

Those are examples of this government's cultural policy not just to protect Canadian culture but to promote it, to ensure that we have a viable industry that, as Reform says, can compete anywhere in the world. That is because of this government's policy. If we look at that, we must also look to see what has to be done for our cultural sector. The subcommittee on the MAI and the Canadian heritage committee have been listening to what has to be done.

Mr. Neil has said in his report that first and foremost Canada must take a lead role and try to support the principle of the French government which is asking for a full exception. Currently the only exception in the MAI text as drafted in January 1997 is an exception for national security. The French addendum puts in a principle of cultural exception. Let us use that word clearly, exception.

We also listened to representatives from SOCAN, the society of Canadian composers, who came up with a review of different ways we could exempt culture. They came up with a broad definition of culture, one that differs from the NAFTA definition. When we consider where we were with culture years ago when NAFTA was drafted, we did not have the technology and the art we now have. They added words to it. Television and broadcasting are now part of it. The committee looked at that.

The same day we heard from SOCAN, the standing committee on heritage also heard from representatives from the Ministry of Industry who spoke about the multimedia industry. They told us how our cultural industries account for 25% of the multimedia industry. But that is not a definition in NAFTA. So the committee is listening. Perhaps the SOCAN exception is not sufficient. We have to continue to consult with heritage, with industry as to what the appropriate exceptions should be. Again, we are now talking about exceptions but that is not all we have to look at.

If we cannot get all the other countries to buy into the idea of an exception for culture as we have done for national security, then there is one other recommendation made by Mr. Neil in his report. If the broad exception is not agreed on, the country specific reservations must be unbound and new measures must be permitted.

I am happy to report that is exactly what the Minister for International Trade has stated. If we are not able to obtain a full out exception along the principles of the French exception, then Canada will accept nothing less than an unbound country specific reservation, the recommendation made by Mr. Neil at the Canadian Conference of the Arts.

The minister is listening and the committee is recommending the principles of SOCAN. Mr. Keith Kelly, the executive director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, told us to make it self-judging and important, protect what is important to Canadians. That is what this government is going to do. If we do sign we will do so only when we have fully protected the cultural industries. We will not sign until we have a definition that covers not only the arts and cultural industries of today but the arts and cultural industries of tomorrow. Only in that way, by continuing with our present cultural policy of ensuring Canadian content and creation and the infrastructure to support it, only then will we be able to compete abroad.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rather curious with this very broad exemption the member is asking for if it would include such things as telecommunications, computer software, television signals, Internet service. These are all things that could be argued as relating to Canadian culture. If that is the case and considering the whole area that I have just mentioned is the greatest expansion of investment in the world today with satellites and all of the very high level, high priced technology, is she not really saying that with that broad exception no investment in Canada for anything to do with new telecommunications, Internet, satellite or anything else?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very important and relevant question.

One of the things with respect to the broadening of the definition is if we look at the SOCAN exception it has added communications by telecommunication in its definition of cultural industries. I think this is something we are going to have to debate as to what are cultural industries. We cannot predict in the future what our new cultural industries will be.

I do not believe that the NAFTA definition is simply enough. But I also take the recommendation made by the Canadian Conference of the Arts that one way we can ensure we can protect and promote our cultural industries abroad and have them compete in this competitive world is by making culture self-judging.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park for actually reading into the record some very important facts that have been put forward by Garry Neil and also by Keith Kelly.

I understand a great deal about the issues the hon. member is talking about and I appreciate her concern about culture in Canada.

I am still very nervous though about wording. I would like to know whether the hon. member thinks it would be a good idea to have people like Garry Neil and Keith Kelly, spokespeople for the arts, available to actually make a final judgment on whether or not we have at the end of the day a cultural carve out which is acceptable to them. How does the hon. member think that could happen so that we will not at the end of the day find ourselves with something which is absolutely useless for culture in this country?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think consultation is important, absolutely. One of the recommendations the subcommittee made was to support the approach to seek general exception, make it self-judging and aggressively pursue an alliance with respect to exceptions.

Yes, I think it is important that we continue to have discussions with members of the arts and cultural communities which we are doing right now in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This is not something we have put aside to just let the subcommittee work with. The more consultations we have the better. We need to continue this and get into partnerships which this government is willing to do with the arts and cultural industries in Canada.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was on the subcommittee on trade disputes which considered this issue with the hon. member. I know of her concern for the cultural and arts sector.

What bothers me a little bit is it seems to me we are talking about a big agreement here that has the potential for benefiting a lot of sectors. Culture is one of them, but there are a lot of sectors that could enjoy more investment. There are a lot of Canadian businesses that are investing outside our country and which need the protection this kind of agreement would provide, protection for non-discrimination, protection for expropriation.

The member has suggested we should walk away from this unless we get this broad self-judging exemption for our cultural industry—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The member for Parkdale—High Park has about 45 seconds to respond.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister has made it absolutely clear and I support the minister. If we cannot get an acceptable cultural country specific reservation, we will walk away from this agreement.

We are not protecting our industries right now. If we look to see who controls our publishing, who controls our recording, who controls our film distribution, it is not Canadians. We do not have a protectionist policy. We do not stop those people from coming into Canada and investing under our rules and under the transparency rules. I invite companies to come and to be part of our cultural industries, but not to take them over.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Resuming debate. Before we do, hon. members, if during the questions and comments there seems to be a good interest and a lot of members wanting to ask questions, if you would indicate that to me then I will know the number of people who want to ask questions. Then we can keep the questions and comments quite short so we can get in as many people as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, for your information I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver Island North.

The Reform Party is very proud to have brought this to the floor of the House of Commons in the absence of information being provided by the Liberals over this very, very important issue. The questions of the people of Canada have fundamentally been met by silence.

I heard the member for Winnipeg speaking about the fact that members of Parliament had been briefed. Is that not wonderful. There are 300 of us. There are 30 million Canadians who would like the information, not just 300 members of Parliament.

During the 1997 election the question came up, what is the MAI? What is it all about? There was a lot of concerned chagrin on the part of many Canadians, myself included, because I did not know what the MAI was. All I found out was that it had been under a process of negotiation not just for weeks, not just for months, but for well over a year and the people of Canada had been basically kept in the dark. This has led to a deep concern on the part of Canadians as to what this government, indeed what these multinational companies are up to. What is going on behind closed doors?

Into that vacuum of information we have had the foes of the MAI jump. They have jumped in with books. They have jumped in with public appearances on radio and television. They have been in front of every microphone, and where has the minister been? I do not know. Certainly not in front of a microphone, certainly not explaining this.

I ask the question, what is in it for the foes, what is their agenda? I suppose to a certain extent a person could say it makes an awful lot of money for public interest groups. They take a contrary position to the government and they build it up in some kind of a ghost and goblin way, such as the Council of Canadians has done. It makes a lot of money for their cause and keeps their people employed. Their attack on this is sometimes blunt and forceful and sometimes subtle.

I have in hand a book entitled MAI: The Multilateral Agreement on Investment and the Threat to Canadian Sovereignty . If that is not ghosts and goblins, I do not know what is.

To show the subtleness I am referring to, I quote from page 67: “While it is doubtful whether foreign based corporations would try and use the MAI rules to strike down provincial labour codes directly, the new investment treaty would most certainly create a more competitive climate, which would put additional pressure on governments to weaken parts of the labour codes”. Then they give some examples, and they conclude by saying: “These examples show that this kind of economic type legislation is increasingly the target of attack by big business in this country”.

What is going on here is the foes to the MAI are basically having a field day while fundamentally we have silence from the government on the other side. It is into this breach that the Reform Party jumps, and we jump with information.

The multilateral agreement on investment is going to be a creation of negotiation. It is not a stationary object we can throw stones at. It is presently under negotiation. I suggest, as a matter of fact I state, that a multilateral agreement on investment would be of great benefit to Canada as a trading nation and to all the people of Canada who work for the companies that are involved in producing the goods and services.

What is the MAI? Quite simply it is nothing more and nothing less than a common set of rules that defines the rights and obligations of investors from 29 countries when they invest in any of the other 28 countries that are currently negotiating the agreement. That is it. That is what the MAI is.

The MAI fundamentally sets out a level playing field. It replaces a mixture, a pot-pourri of overlapping and sometimes conflicting investment agreements between all of those countries and other countries in the world. It brings some order to the chaos that presently exists between countries in terms of rules which subject companies to the rules of governments when they make investment in foreign countries.

I also point out that we now have the free trade agreement, NAFTA and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which is now conducted under the World Trade Organization. All of those agreements have sections relating to investment. We have chaos at this particular point.

What would happen if we did not sign? In committee just the other day, Mr. Jack Stoddart, the chairman and publisher of General Publishing Company, said “It is important because we can live within the OECD”—the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development—“without the MAI and that is important because many people feel that it is either all or nothing. You have to be in or we will be sort of out in left field. We have so many trade deals, so many trade treaties already with countries we are talking about in the 29 countries but, as Mike Harris the skip of the Canadian men's curling team said `Well, tomorrow the sun will rise”.

Mr. Stoddart then says “Well, if we don't sign this deal the sun will rise. I would suggest however that it is going to be a difficult day for the cultural industry if the deal goes through the wrong way”.

What are we saying here? There are very large Canadian multinational corporations that have investments worldwide. Just to name a few: Cominco, Noranda, Inco, General Motors. They all have investments worldwide. If those investments are put into jeopardy by a foreign country determining that they are going to be treating the Canadian investment in their country in a different way to the way in which they are treating their other national companies, that effectively means the jobs of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Canadians presently working in Canada have the potential of being in jeopardy because of the actions of a foreign nation against a Canadian multinational company.

I just heard a Liberal across the floor say we will not sign a deal unless we get a broad cultural exemption. Was she saying that the jobs and investments in the cultural industry in Canada are more important than the jobs and the investment in the large companies in Canada that have investments outside of our country? Is she pitting one group of workers or one group of investors against another saying that if the mythical cultural group is not protected, then we are not going to protect anyone? That is a rather shameful way to look at it.

We have the globalization of culture whether we want it or not. I heard in committee people from Quebec and people interested in the French language in Canada saying that there is an encroachment on the Internet and the worldwide web of English and English terms are getting in the way of French and thereby undermining the French culture in Canada. This is not unique to Quebec. It is not unique to French speaking Canadians anywhere in Canada. This is exactly the complaint that is addressed in Russia. Russia is using an English word for floppy disk. There is nothing like that in its lexicon.

The difficulty is that if we go to a broad exception such as has been proposed by the Liberals, the U.S. will not sign it. Therefore the MAI will not come into effect. If we go to a broad exception, we have not really achieved anything in any event because we have not been able to define what is culture and what is not culture. Consequently, we will end up with the same chaos we presently have.

The MAI will not make or break Canadian culture. The MAI is a part of our arrangement relative to Canadian culture. The position of the Reform Party is that it would support exceptions as narrow as required and only when necessary for specific protection. This idea of a broad exception, an all encompassing exception, is not acceptable.

We believe that culture should be negotiated at the World Trade Organization as a package of culture. We must negotiate in concert with Germany, France, the U.K. and Australia against the United States to form an alliance against the United States because of its attitude toward the export of its culture.

The MAI, properly negotiated, will be a powerful tool in the hands of Canadian companies and Canadian workers will move ahead as a result of it.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that all opposition parties would like to have a full impact analysis of the MAI. We also suggest that the MAI be subject to a final text which fully protects Canadian culture, but not only Canadian culture. I have heard much about that today, but I have not heard about the environment, labour standards, health, education and social services at the federal and sub-national levels.

I wonder what the member of the Reform Party feels about issues other than culture.

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

Mr. Speaker, the impact analysis is something which has been recommended, as I understand it, by the subcommittee. The Reform Party is in support of that section of its report.

The other areas which the hon. member is asking about are presently covered under the NAFTA and we would expect the same kind of treatment in those areas. Otherwise we would end up with conflict between the NAFTA and the MAI. The agreements must be negotiated in parallel. We cannot have two separate agreements which relate to the same thing saying different things.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it unequivocally clear that the multilateral agreement among all of the OECD members is not an end in itself. It is a beginning. The next step would be to go to the World Trade Organization and, hopefully, every member of the World Trade Organization will abide by the same rules.

I also want to tell my colleague that our negotiators are not going to a round table with other OECD members to discuss our cultural industry as an open field. There are already protections under the FTA and the NAFTA for our cultural industry. We want to ensure, as a minimum, that what we have in terms of exemptions now under the NAFTA and the free trade agreement will continue when we sign the MAI.

To that extent, what the government is doing, basically, is the absolute minimum in a fair game.

I want to take my colleague's comments today as an endorsement of what the government is doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, the cultural exemption to which the member speaks which exists under the NAFTA is indeed a very weak exemption. It can be countervailed.

I would like to use Sports Illustrated as an example. I realize that Sports Illustrated comes under the WTO, but I am using it as an example. If we are not prepared to comply with the findings of a tribunal, the United States could countervail Sports Illustrated with wood. The United States could countervail movie production with wine making. The U.S. has a whole host of remedies which would go against us on our exemption.

It borders on being a myth that we have a cultural exemption under the NAFTA.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the hon. member's comments. What he said was, if you have this unconditional or broad mandated carve-out for culture, the Americans will not sign. Therefore we cannot go ahead with it.

Somehow the Reform Party's position is that we will go out with some other multilateral partners and make them give us some special conditions on culture. Is the Reform Party's position not that if we cannot get our way with this agreement then we will cave in to the Americans? Is that not what he said?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear one's words repeated by somebody who has a different interpretation of them.

I quoted from a newspaper article which I take as being authoritative. U.S. negotiators say that they believe their cultural related companies, such as telecommunications and computer software firms, would not have as much access to the global market if countries were allowed to protect those kinds of industries. With a broad cultural exemption, it is my position that this government, particularly under the idea that was postulated by the Liberal speaker before me, is that this would be self-policing. We will decide what is going to be included and what is not. Quite frankly, the Yankee trader would be crazy to sign such an agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to discuss the multilateral agreement on investment today. This is an official opposition Reform motion which is being debated. I will read it.

That this House condemn the government for: (1) failing to explain why it is negotiating the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (the MAI), (2) failing to explain what benefits and costs it foresees for the Canadian people, and (3) failing to take part in public discussion on the Agreement.

I have received a significant amount of correspondence on this issue. The main theme in the letters deals with concerns about the MAI as posing a threat to our economy, our environment, our resources and our social and cultural programs, that it is a threat to Canadian sovereignty, and that it would provide new avenues for corporations to challenge national, provincial and municipal laws. There were major concerns about what we termed roll-back and stand-still provisions of the agreement.

The theme seems to be the loss of our Canadian way of life and a concern that any exemptions Canada may negotiate may be difficult to define and difficult to enforce.

What information do we have regarding the MAI? We have the website which has a draft of the text agreement. We have the exemptions proposed by Canada in November 1997. We have the statements of the minister and we have some parliamentary committee proceedings.

What does this information tell us? The first thing we know is that the committee never left Ottawa. Any concerned Canadians from other parts of Canada who appeared before the committee had to travel to do so. Very simply, it is not good enough to only consult in Ottawa on an issue of this magnitude. My position is that it is not for the official opposition to do this homework, it is for the government. In the words of one of my constituents “if it is so good for the Canadian people and the economy, why is it not being debated publicly?”

There are some things I looked for in the 52 pages of the reservations tabled by the minister in November which are of major interest to my constituents in Vancouver Island North. For example, the fisheries exemption. We have one for fishing, harvesting and processing and one for fishing related services which deals with port privileges and foreign fishing within our 200 mile zone. Critics have stated that if the MAI is signed the way it is currently worded, the exemptions do nothing to prevent Canadian fishing licenses from being owned by non-Canadians. If this is the case, it is a major change and one that I believe Canadians would not support.

I have read the fisheries exemptions carefully. They do nothing to alleviate my concern that Canadian fishing licenses should be reserved for Canadians only. The standing committee on fisheries has invited the Canadian negotiator to attend our committee to respond to this and other concerns. This has not yet occurred. There are many things that have not yet occurred on this file.

I attended a standing committee environment meeting two weeks ago because the Canadian negotiator was represented at the meeting. He stated that the minister was considering signing a letter of intent regarding the MAI at the end of April because there would be no final text available at that time. This is highly inappropriate as it takes us further down the road without knowing where we are going. It is also a dismal negotiating position for a government already known as a patsy in international circles. The minister should not sign anything at the end of April.

There are some concerns about provincial jurisdiction in particular from British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. For example, in B.C. the crown owns 95% of the forest land and uses the forest as a strong instrument of government policy making. Many people involved in the industry as well as government do not want this agreement to tie their hands in terms of promoting value added British Columbia manufacturing and other initiatives.

B.C. has the added complexity of the recent supreme court decision on aboriginal land title, the Delgamuuk decision. The current aboriginal affairs exemption is totally inadequate and does not cover the eventuality of investor compensation by government for ongoing aboriginal land claims.

This is an obvious shortcoming given that government may unavoidably be compelled to transfer assets or deny investment. This is a tremendously complex area that can no longer be glossed over. Provincial interests have been seriously neglected by the federal government on the major issue of aboriginal affairs for a long time. The time for Liberal government fudging is over, not to be continued with the MAI on this file.

It is readily apparent that a major set of consultations with stakeholders is required across the country and it has not happened. Canada has further reserved the right to adopt or maintain any measures with respect to public law enforcement, correctional services, income security, social security, social welfare, public education, training, health and child care. On the surface this sounds reasonably sensible. In addition, there are several exemptions for oil and gas, banking and financial services and land ownership. The list does not look as comprehensive as I would have anticipated given public concerns about the environment, for example.

What do I have to stack up against these criticisms? The minister is now saying that there is virtually no chance of an agreement by April and lots of chance for consultation. He made a speech. What did he say in his speech? He said: “Canada will not accept any general commitment to freeze the so-called standstill or phase out restrictions on foreign investment. Canada will retain the flexibility to carry out public policy in core areas of national interest. The MAI would also not force Canada to lower its labour or environmental standards. In fact, it is intended to keep other countries from lowering theirs to attract investment away from Canada”.

He also said: “I can tell you what the MAI is not. It is not a charter of rights for multinational companies, nor does it spell the end of Canada's sovereignty. We will retain the right to enact laws in all areas, social policy, health care, corporate rules, labour and the environment. We will still be able to impose restrictions on foreign investment in sectors like culture, health care and education”. That is what the minister said.

Where did he make this speech? To the Standing Committee on Industry in Ottawa. It is no wonder Canadians are wondering where the minister is who is responsible for the MAI. The question is who is right, the critics or the minister. Who are we to believe and where is the missing dialogue? Why is the government failing to explain to the public why it is negotiating the MAI and what the costs and benefits are for the Canadian people?

This is a very significant initiative which is certainly deserving of a much greater profile and public consultation than the government has given it. I would like to be able to analyse the information and come up with a reasoned response as I think many Canadians would like to do. Given what has transpired to date, this is impossible and I blame the government. I am in full concurrence with the official opposition motion to condemn the government for its lack of proactivity on this issue. It has had the time, the opportunity and the resources, but it simply has not had the political will.

In the minister's own words: “My department is consulting closely with the provinces, the private sector and non-governmental organizations”.

Without challenging that statement there is one thing very wrong with it. He has left out the public. That concludes my remarks.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by commenting on some of the points that were raised earlier with respect to this, which will lead up to my question for the hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

Earlier the member for Kootenay—Columbia indicated that the government, if I understood him correctly, was pitting one industry against another industry. If I understood him properly we should not be protecting broad based Canadian heritage.

A very clear message has been sent out today. If I understood the member properly it is that Canadian heritage is on the trading block as far as the Reform is concerned. Absolutely not, as far as the government has said.

My question is for the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. Does he believe we should protect Canadian heritage at all cost, even if it were to mean not signing the MAI? Remember, sir, that you are dealing with the very make-up of our country when you are questioning this and people are listening.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I remind all members to address each other through the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues in the MAI of which heritage is one. To wrap oneself in the heritage flag and suggest that the Liberal answer is the only answer, which is actually a totally unworkable answer, I am not going to respond directly.

What I will say is in any set of negotiations there are some basic issues. If we do not get what we want we should not sign it. I agree with that.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after hearing a few of the speeches by Reform Party members I concluded that we are in agreement about the need for an agreement.

However there is one exception. My colleagues in the Reform Party want the government to abandon its fight on behalf of cultural industries. I want to say for the record that we will not abandon that fight.

My colleague is trying to allude to the fact that certain Canadian laws will be affected if we were to sign the multilateral agreement. I want to correct the record. No Canadian laws will be affected as a result of that. Every Canadian law, whether provincial or federal, will continue to be in full force after the signing of the multilateral agreement.

I wanted to have straight that signing the agreement will not cripple the hands of the Canadian government from enacting special laws in Canada.

Would the hon. member stand and say that he commends what our Canadian negotiators are doing at the table?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that government members want to somehow portray themselves as the only defenders of Canadian culture.

If the hon. member wants to take that position he should narrowly define what he says and say exactly what he wants. What he has said so far does not cut it. A broad exemption really does not cut it.

I raised some legitimate concerns from a British Columbia perspective, from a provincial perspective. I do not hear anyone asking me about those legitimate concerns. Members will not find out about any of them if they sit in Ottawa and only accept input in Ottawa.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member for Vancouver Island North is a very straightforward one.

If the MAI is so important to the Reform Party, why was it that the leader of the Reform Party during the last federal election did not say one word about the MAI?

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

Mr. Speaker, we needed to see the details when the election campaign was going on. It is interesting that this question should come from the NDP.

During the election campaign, when I was asked about the MAI, I had an opinion. When the NDP candidate was asked about the MAI, he did not know anything about it. Twenty-four hours later, he was totally opposed. What kind of homework is that?