Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak on the opposition motion moved by the Bloc Quebecois, which calls for the striking of a committee to consider parliamentarians' ability to narrow the gap between rich and poor in the context created by the globalization of markets.
As the Bloc Quebecois critic for Canadian heritage, I will deal with this issue from the perspective of the MAI, the famous Multilateral Agreement on Investment, but from its cultural dimension or the impact this agreement might have on the cultural sector, because this agreement, as presently designed, represents a real danger for cultural sectors in Canada and Quebec.
We cannot think of a massive liberalization that would lead to the outright abandonment of policies and measures designed to support the cultural sector without first knowing the economic importance of this sector.
Cultural activities in Canada provide about 900,000 direct jobs and an estimated 300,000 indirect jobs, for a grand total of 1.2 million. These jobs account for 9.2% of the labour market. The direct contribution of cultural activities to the economy amounts to $29 billion, or 4.7% of the gross domestic product, while its indirect contribution is $42 billion, or 6.8% of the gross domestic product. Consequently, we cannot consider the cultural sector as minor and make it a pawn to be sacrificed on the altar of major international trade agreements.
Over the years, Canada has put in place some measures aimed at supporting domestic art production. The main measures implemented were the imposition of limits on foreign property and of quotas on Canadian content, subsidies, support for distribution and exports, tax credits and the creation of crown corporations.
Despite their scope, these measures barely allowed Canada to have access to part of its domestic market. Indeed, Canadian cultural products have a marginal position in the market. For example, 92% of the movies shown on our screens are foreign, 60% of books sold in Canada and Quebec are American and 88% of sound recordings put on the market have a foreign content. As you can see, we are far from being protectionist in the cultural sector. We only want to keep some room so that our creators can express themselves.
Obviously, without those support measures, Canadian and Quebec artists would not even have that minimal share of the Canadian market.
Quebeckers distinguish themselves from their Canadian fellow citizens by the fact that in some areas they have a preference for their own writers and productions. However, in the event of complete deregulation, foreign conglomerates could flood our market with products so cheap that even that preference would not allow us to preserve a Quebec content.
The supporters of neo-liberalism often argue that Canada is an exporter of cultural products and, hence, it would be beneficial to liberalize trade in cultural products. They forget that to begin with you must have something to sell. In the cultural area, it is vital to have a safe domestic market to develop products we will then be able to export. Government policies were the means which stimulated and encouraged the creation and production of cultural works for Canadians and which indirectly created cultural goods and services that could be exported.
If we destroy the base for cultural creation in Canada and in Quebec, there will probably still be a cultural industry, but it will in no way be the mirror of Canadian and Quebec identities. We will become producers of americanized cultural products that will be sold in Canada as well as in foreign countries.
The MAI includes copyright in the definition of investment. Since the most recent commercial agreement always takes precedence over other agreements, the MAI would weaken copyright by invalidating the gains made under previous agreements such as the Rome Convention, the Berne Convention and the International Treaty on Intellectual Property. The MAI would bring to an end collectives which defend the rights of artists. This would be the triumph of the American business approach over the rights of creators.
This problem was well understood by the Culture, Youth, Education and Media Commission of the European Parliament, which stated in January 1998, and I quote:
Incorporating intellectual property issues in a general agreement to regulate investment would be the equivalent of applying an extremely minimalist approach to the whole idea of intellectual property. This is why the MAI should not be applied to that area but should abide by the international agreements already in force that are the result of long and complicated technical negotiations.
We deeply regret that there is no single Canadian position regarding the cultural industries, but rather multiple positions that change according to the mood of the Minister for International Trade, the public whom he addresses or the pressures exerted on him, in particular the telephone calls from the U.S. Trade Secretary.
For instance, on February 12, the minister asserted that this agreement would not be signed unless it provided for a full cultural exemption. However, the next day, he was less definitive. On February 13, he said that, if he did not get a full exemption, he would settle for country specific reservation. The minister speaks out of both sides of his mouth in his response to the report of the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment regarding the MAI.
Is there a distinction between an exemption and a country specific reservation? Yes, and an important one. A country specific reservation is neither sufficient nor acceptable. Reservations have a lower legal status. Moreover, to settle for a country specific reservation instead of a full exemption would be a major compromise never seen in multilateral and bilateral agreements.
The general exception clause has the advantage of not identifying a particular country. All countries are entitled to the same exception, while a mere reservation identifies a country trying to protect itself. A reservation clause shows that this protection is an irritant that will eventually disappear.
Reservation clauses are limited by two principles: the status quo and dismantling. The status quo principle implies that the only authorized changes to measures to which the reservation clause applies would be those which would make those measures more compatible with the agreement. It would therefore be impossible to establish new cultural protection measures, either in the traditional sectors or in the new media resulting from technological progress. Under the dismantling principle, all the measures listed by the various countries are gradually eliminated. Once a country has abandoned a measure it is for good, it cannot be reactivated.
If we agree to sign a MAI which does not have a general exemption clause for cultural matters, we must realise that we are forsaking whatever small Canadian or Quebec content we still have. Without a way of expressing our culture we cannot preserve our Canadian or Quebec identity.
There is also a democratic component, because without a truly Canadian or Quebec cultural space it is impossible to maintain a diverse public space allowing our citizens to participate in our cultural life, which is necessary to public life. We have to leave some room for a democratic expression which goes beyond the simple producer-consumer relation.
The minister must be inflexible concerning the MAI. Without a general cultural exemption, no MAI. A reservation is not acceptable. The heritage minister must play an active role in the international negotiations to have culture excluded the same way defence is excluded. If they really care about the future of their own country, Liberals should worry more about the MAI than about separatists because the MAI is a bigger threat.