moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Motion No.7
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 13.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 18.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 20.
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-55 be amended by deleting Clause 21.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for seconding the motions. I am pleased to debate at report stage the amendments to Bill C-55, the magazine bill as everyone knows it. The bill is really not about culture; it is about trade.
Bill C-55 has created a life of its own and is about to put Canadian jobs at risk. In some ways the bill has got out of hand over the past several months because of numerous statements made by many parties which have not helped matters. It has the potential to threaten many Canadian jobs.
Today the heritage minister indicated that she will amend the bill, but she could do a lot better. She could withdraw the bill at this time. The heritage minister's amendment is redundant. It does nothing. Bill C-55 is still government legislation. It is still onstream.
This is the reality of the amendment: Once Bill C-55 passes through both houses of parliament it will qualify as an action under article 2005 of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Under subarticle 2005(2) the United States “may take measures of equivalent commercial effect in response to actions”.
My main message is that the minister's amendment is legally meaningless. With or without it—