Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate today on Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.
The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage having reviewed this bill clause by clause, we are now proceeding to consideration of the bill at report stage. My hon. colleague from Dauphin—Swan River has introduced 21 motions in amendment designed to delete clauses 1 through 21 of Bill C-55.
To ensure greater efficiency in the House, the Chair has grouped these 21 motions together. I will therefore use the time allotted to me to discuss the Bloc Quebecois' position on this bill.
First of all, the Bloc Quebecois is against the 21 Reform motions as they boil down to withdrawing the bill.
The Bloc Quebecois has supported this bill from the outset because it acknowledges as legal and legitimate the right of any people to protect its culture against an overly aggresive invader. It is therefore no wonder that the Bloc Quebecois is working toward Quebec's sovereignty, since the Canadian government will not recognize the people of Quebec.
The battle waged at this time in Canada goes far beyond the periodical publishing industry. Two major principles are at stake.
First, we must assert the rights provided for in the trade agreements we have signed. Otherwise, it would be like saying that all these rights, including the cultural exemption in NAFTA, have no true value without the United States' approval.
Second, if Canada does not defend its rights, it would be tantamount to letting Washington dictate our country's economic and cultural policies.
This is nothing new. In all the trade negotiations in which Canada took part, successive Canadian governments stated clearly, without beating around the bush, that Canadian culture was not negotiable. Yesterday, in a statement to the media, François de Gaspé Beaubien said, and I quote:
We have obtained a cultural exemption under the free trade agreement and under NAFTA, and we have not assumed any obligation under the WTO agreements that would restrict Canada's right and ability to implement these policies. In the magazine industry, the United States have not obtained the right to have access to our advertising services market, and we are under no obligation to grant them that access.
What is the purpose of this bill? Essentially, this bill is to prevent American advertising from being replaced with Canadian advertising in split run editions of American magazines sold on the Canadian market. This policy has been in place for more than 30 years, and split run editions of American magazines such as Time and Reader's Digest are protected under the bill's grandfather clause.
This is not about prohibiting imports of foreign magazines into Canada. After this bill is passed, nothing will be changed. Foreign periodicals will still be imported and will still take up 80% of shelf space in English Canada, and account for 50% of magazine sales in English Canada. This bill is aimed at preventing unfair competition by dumping advertising charges.
The Bloc Quebecois understands the concerns expressed by many Quebec and Canadian businessmen, who do not want to get caught in the crossfire when they are not directly involved in the periodicals industry.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that the United States is using these businesses to encroach upon states' rights to pass measures favourable to their economy.
These industries deserve to be given information by the federal government on the mechanisms governing international trade so that their fear of reprisal will be replaced by informed knowledge of the mechanisms for handling international trade disputes.
The Bloc Quebecois also believes that the rules of international trade apply to the US as much as they do to any other country on this planet. The Bloc Quebecois therefore calls upon the federal government to continue its negotiations with the US representatives, in order to reach a negotiated agreement to protect the magazine industry.