Madam Speaker, the Liberals would have us think they are great champions of expediency and getting a wonderful bill through the House. This is why they have arranged matters with this bill in order to limit debate.
It is very instructive for people who have been watching today to notice what happened. The Liberals, terribly concerned about a threatened Reform filibuster, cut off debate. The Liberals then are filibustering. The dread filibuster has arrived. Who is driving the get away car? It is the Liberals. Here we have the Liberals throwing up speakers. I had not intended to speak to this part of the debate but I knew that they would use up all the airtime unless the opposition scrambled to speak.
In addition, far from there being a filibuster, we are not even allowed to speak to the minister's own amendment to this bill. In other words, the minister brings in what she tells us is a wonderful amendment to this bill but we do not get to talk about it, debate it, examine it or get any time to talk about the pros and cons of it. Why? The Liberals are refusing to even allow us to talk about the minister's amendment to the bill. That is the Liberal definition of democracy.
I hope Canadians watching this debate are getting as outraged and as fed up as I and many of us on this side of the House are about what is happening.
In addition to false accusations against Reform about a threatened filibuster, which came after we spoke to this bill for less than an hour, there is a stampede to stop a filibuster. I guess one hour is a filibuster according to the Liberals because they do not like to see any opposition to their measures. We then have other ridiculous assertions by the Liberals who are being thrown up to speak on this, none of which hold the slightest bit of water.
We had one member, for example, saying that Reform had diminished hockey. Is it not interesting that a government that is giving us a 65 cent dollar and 33% more taxes is accusing other people of hurting businesses that have to compete against the U.S.?
There have been some very interesting misrepresentations by the Liberals about Bill C-55. One is that there is a crying need to protect Canadian magazines because 80% of the magazines purchased at the newsstand are American. The Liberals neglect to tell us that less than 5% of the magazines read by Canadians are purchased at the newsstand and 80% of those are U.S. We are talking 80% of less than 5%. Somehow it drives the Liberals into a frenzy of culture protection because many of the less than 5% of magazines purchased are U.S. magazines.
God forbid that Canadians should be allowed the freedom to purchase the magazines that they would like to purchase from newsstands. But of course Canadians really need to be protected against their own freedom of choice. Canadians have to be limited in the reading material they get. They can only read magazines produced in Canada because if Canadians dare to purchase from the newsstands a majority of magazines that are produced somewhere else, then the Liberals have to shut it down with some legislated measures.
Let us look at what has happened with this split-run business. In 1997 the Liberal government lost a challenge laid with the World Trade Organization against its unfair and inappropriate measures to try to coerce Canadians into reading only certain types of material. The World Trade Organization said that this contravened the kind of trade measures that had been agreed on in the international trade scene.
What did the Liberals do next? They brought in Bill C-55 in order to do an end run around the World Trade Organization. Of course the World Trade Organization understandably is a little unimpressed by this move by the Liberals but the Liberals have done it anyway. We heard today that the Liberals have brought in a measure that says that we cannot stop magazines that have been operating in Canada on split runs so this only applies to new magazines that come onstream.
If all of a sudden we have to protect Canadians against new incursions into their magazine market by the U.S., but we have to allow the magazines that were operating in 1997 when we lost this appeal to the World Trade Organization, then what are we really protecting Canadian culture from? None of the elements that were present in 1997 will be affected by this bill, only new ones. Suddenly there is a switch. The things we were going to have to be protected against in 1997 are now allowable, they are okay now. Our Canadian culture is not threatened by them any more, even though we tried to restrict them. Now we have to restrict something that may be new or different. We are not sure what it is yet but by God, we are not going to allow it. No siree, we are going to stand up for Canadian culture.
One of the members opposite even had the nerve to suggest that artists like Céline Dion and Shania Twain owed their success to the protective hand of government. What errant nonsense. If I were one of the artists mentioned in the member's speech, I would be absolutely furious at the suggestion that in some way, shape or form the comforting and kind hand of government had made me a success.
I would like to suggest a rather new and startling proposal to this government, which is that Canadian artists, Canadian culture and Canadian magazines can compete on their own. They may just be good enough, strong enough, timely enough, well written enough, well researched enough and appeal to the information needs of Canadians enough that they do not need this Liberal government and its silly bills to protect them.
It is time that we were realistic about some of these things. To hear the debate from the other side and to hear the intransigence on the other side about debating their own amendments is a poor reflection on the democracy of this place. As our House leader just mentioned, the Liberals' abuse of the system, the Liberals' assertions that do not hold water simply cannot be tolerated any longer.
Today in question period we heard the minister make it clear to everyone that she does not know the provisions in her bill and how the bill will affect Chinese publications and their split runs. There is clearly something wrong when the minister misinforms the House about the effect of her own bill.
Surely there is a great need to take some time to debate this properly and thoroughly but no, we have to close down debate. My debate is going to be closed down pretty soon, and I am sure everyone feels as badly about that as I do.
The Liberals have to arrange things so we cannot discuss the minister's amendments. It is time we put a stop to this. I appeal to members of the House to give this matter some sober thought. Make sure that bills are properly debated and presented and that every aspect is examined by the House as it is our duty and our responsibility to do.