Debates of March 8th, 1999

Division No. 327

[An hon. member]

And inaccurate.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend says that this is an inaccurate comment. I do not think it is inaccurate at all.

It is clear from the content of this grouping that the essential components of Bill C-55 are being deleted. It is fair to say that if we support the general thrust of Bill C-55, we will oppose these amendments put forward by the Reform Party.

It is also fair to say that in the budget plans put forward by my Reform Party friends, they would also essentially decimate the Department of Canadian Heritage. I stand to be corrected but that is my interpretation.

[An hon. member]

That would be good.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

I was sending up a trial balloon. I could not believe that anyone would want to delete the heritage department.

[An hon. member]

Absolutely.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

The enthusiasm comes loud and clear and emphasizes the point. I thank my Reform Party friends for the firming up of that position. We are good buddies of course, but good buddies can have different views on things. It is important that these positions be clarified.

I am actually dumbfounded. When we think about the struggle this country has. It is dwarfed by our friends to the south, the United States of America, and the synergy of business promotes their cultural industries. It is an incredible force and from day one it has been a continuous battle on our front as Canadians to stand up to that onslaught.

I look specifically at the film industry. The American film giants have a stranglehold on the theatres across the country. Their control is a reality. Think of our struggling film industry. I am proud to say it is now centred in British Columbia. For a number of years the Canadian film industry was centred in central Canada but in the last few months, the size and the dynamism of the film industry are reflected in British Columbia. We are proud of that. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we are a lot closer to Hollywood than other parts of Canada, I do not know. Nevertheless, it is a continual struggle.

It has now been clarified beyond any doubt what these amendments do to Bill C-55, so I will conclude my remarks and look forward to addressing the next round of amendments.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to clarify, the hon. member for Kamloops suggested that the Reform Party would like to decimate the Department of Canadian Heritage. It is absolutely true that we want to cut substantially the waste in the kind of programs administered by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

We believe that Canadian heritage and our cultural identity can better be protected by Canadians than by bureaucrats and politicians in Ottawa. We believe that free flag giveaways and handouts to interest groups seeking more cash are exactly what is wrong with this government. We think the huge subsidies to bloated crown corporations with their enormous waste and bureaucracy and middle management produce very little in terms of concrete results.

Those things are very low in the priorities of Canadians with respect to public spending. We do not apologize for a moment in saying that tax relief and health care for hard pressed Canadian families come as higher priorities to Canadians than grants and handouts to interest groups through Canadian heritage. We are proud to be in line with the public's priorities in this respect.

I stand today to speak to this latest folly by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. She was a very effective member of the opposition but she really has become something of an embarrassment to the cabinet, the government and I submit, this parliament when it comes to the kind of extremism in policy she promotes.

Bill C-55 is an effort to draw Canada back decades into the era of protectionism, an era when countries looked inward instead of outward, an era that is reflective of the kind of campaign the Minister of Canadian Heritage led against the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1988 election.

When the Liberal Party sat on the opposition benches, it told Canadians that the free trade agreement would be the end of Canada, that it would be the end of our economic sovereignty and hence the end of our cultural and political sovereignty. I remember the cries of Chicken Little from the Minister of Canadian Heritage and her colleagues at that time suggesting that to allow free trade between these two great partners, Canada and the United States, would lead to economic disaster. As we all know that has been proven to be completely specious.

The one element driving Canadian economic growth over the past decade overwhelmingly has been our bilateral trade with the United States, a country with which we conduct some 80% of our trade, about $1 billion in trade a day. Bill C-55 seeks to address one very small element of the huge $350 billion plus annual exchange between these two countries, the $400 million magazine advertising market.

I must tell members that since deciding to run and since being elected on June 2, 1997 I have spoken with literally thousands of people in my constituency as well as thousands of others outside my constituency, going door to door, meeting people at town hall meetings, listening to their concerns, speaking on open line radio shows, and I can say that of the thousands of conversations I have had with Canadians not a single one has ever suggested to me that they had the least bit of concern about the sovereignty of the Canadian magazine industry.

I cannot recall a single ordinary Canadian outside the strange and twisted political hothouse of Ottawa and the Liberal caucus who suggested that we need to move decades backwards in economic policy to enshrine protectionism, as in this bill, in order to create restrictions on freedom of speech by penalizing American publications which accept Canadian advertising. Not a single Canadian has said that to me.

I look at the priorities that we face as a country, priorities I hear about every single day from ordinary Canadians. Priorities such as the need to put health care first in our public spending. Priorities such as the need for tax relief for working families. Priorities such as the need to democratize this institution to make Canada a more vibrant and representative democracy. Those are the priorities Canadians are concerned with. When I look at the government's legislative agenda I do not see those priorities addressed anywhere. Instead I see Bill C-55 which deals with an obscure concern of a relatively small interest group of enterprises.

What I have heard from my constituents is outrage that this government is proceeding with this bill. Calgary, which I represent in part, has a large and growing plastics industry. Our American friends, through their trade representative Madam Barshefsky, have indicated that the plastics industry in Canada could be subject to countervailing measures were we to adopt and implement the measures proposed before us in this bill. What would that mean? It could mean potentially devastating tariffs for the plastics industry and for people who reside in my constituency.

I have not had a single one of my constituents call me to ask for this kind of protectionism. But many have called to say “Please do not let this crazy effort by the minister of heritage destroy our jobs and impair our industry by provoking the Americans into a bilateral trade war”.

This bill is plainly and simply irresponsible. The government claims it is necessary. It throws twisted and completely inaccurate statistics to the effect that 80% of magazines on the stand are foreign magazines, implying therefore that the Canadian magazine industry is a marginal part of what is consumed by readers, which is completely irrelevant because 75% of all magazines read in Canada are received by controlled or paid circulation and about 94% of that segment of the market is Canadian owned. That is not an issue.

But even if it were, I submit that it is a question of freedom. I suggest that we need in examining legislation to make reference to first principles. The first principle that I would propose for all government action would be to maximize freedom; namely, liberty. I know it is a dirty word. It sounds like an American word to some of my friends opposite. But I happen to think that liberty is a concept deeply rooted in our parliamentary heritage.

I think Canadians ought to have the freedom, the liberty, to choose which magazines they read, which publications and periodicals they patronize, without having the government decide for them which of those magazines is acceptable and in which format.

It is really the classic 1960s retro, back to the past, protectionistic, inward looking, parochial liberalism which is rearing its ugly head in this bill.

I support the amendments put forward by my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River which seek to delete the various clauses of this bill because I propose that this is an assault on the freedom of Canadians. Why do we not let Canadians decide for themselves what they want to read? If a Canadian wants to order the split-run version of Sports Illustrated , why do we not let them buy and read it? Where is the harm in that? What damage is done to the Canadian cultural fabric by allowing people to exercise their free choices in deciding what they will consume in terms of reading materials? I simply cannot grasp the rationale for this bill.

To try to impose government sanctions essentially on those who would consume such materials, what we are doing is not only violating their freedom of expression, we are clearly threatening a significant portion of our economy and our economic growth.

I have heard no compelling response from this government to the very serious threats of our American allies to respond through negative tariffs and countervailing measures if we proceed with this bill as the government now seems to be intent on doing.

I know that this bill is very similar in form and content to similar legislation which was passed in the last parliament but which was found by the World Trade Organization to be contrary to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. What I can say is that Canada as a trading country ought to be a champion of free trade. We ought to clearly abide by the rulings of the World Trade Organization. We ought not to be trying in bills such as this to skirt around the rulings of the WTO and other dispute resolution bodies. By doing so we are impugning our credibility as a trading nation in the community of nations. For that reason I think we are doing even greater international damage to our economic base as a trading and exporting nation.

For all of those reasons I, on behalf of my constituents, will vigorously oppose this bill. Notwithstanding the fact that the government is ramming it through this House with a closure motion today, I will oppose this bill and support the amendments of my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, when I first came to the House earlier today it was not my intent to actually speak to this particular bill. However, I want to react to some of the comments made by the previous speaker.

I actually heard a very impassioned plea concerning his support of the free trade agreement which first came into effect in 1989 and which was expanded to the NAFTA in 1993. He actually pointed out something that is very factual. Canada is indeed an export driven economy. We rely very much on our trade not only with the Americans but throughout the world for our economic prosperity.

He also pointed out the benefits of free trade. Before free trade we had about $80 billion to $90 billion worth of trade annually with the Americans. Today, because of the success of free trade, we trade essentially $240 billion worth of commodities with the Americans on an annual basis.

I agreement with the hon. member that free trade was great for this country in terms of our wealth and growth. The amount of substantial growth which we have seen in this country over the last number of years has been largely due to our export driven, resource based economies, while our domestic economy continues to be stifled because our regime is so overly taxed.

In both the FTA and NAFTA we were able to negotiate exemptions for culture. That is something which I believe Canadians fundamentally support.

What is free trade about? It is about the free exchange of commodities. It is also about fair trade. I believe that Canadians want to establish their own environmental standards, their own standards with respect to labour and their own cultural standards.

The Progressive Conservative Party is supporting Bill C-55 because what it represents to us is free trade.

I wish the hon. member had the opportunity to benefit from another history lesson which I will touch upon. During the acid rain debate which culminated in 1987 we had to talk to the Americans about their industries and what they were doing with their sulphur dioxide emissions. They were killing our lakes and rivers. The Americans said that they were not so sure the science was conclusive. We showed them the science. We also showed them that they were hurting their northeastern states as well. We negotiated with Ronald Reagan and George Bush, in a very aggressive fashion, an air quality arrangement so that Canada could protect its rivers and lakes with respect to free trade. We knew it was the right thing to do. Protecting Canadian culture as well is the right thing to do.

The standpoint of the member who just spoke on free trade and who said that it was fundamental to the growth of this country, that if we did not have it we would not be as strong as we are right now, is a little ironic. I also want to point out to the hon. member that in 1988 his party chose to run candidates primarily out west which potentially split our vote and we lost some candidates. By splitting our vote the Reform Party almost sacrificed the free trade agreement. This is an individual who now wants us to unite and come together. It was his party's fundamental economic principles that actually attacked—

[An hon. member]

Ten years of Brian Mulroney.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Yes, the member mentions Brian Mulroney. He actually just defended the free trade agreement brought in by former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

I also find it ironic that the member is now supporting free trade when his party jeopardized that particular arrangement. He is backing off on picking out a party that now wants us to unite as opposed to not uniting.

The other thing I find a little ironic is that this individual was speaking about protection for the plastics industry. We also know that this individual is not necessarily a strong supporter of the latex industry.

What I want to point out is that Canadians want to be able to establish their own cultural, environmental and labour standards. We are an exporting nation. Having said that, every time we get into a situation from a trade dispute perspective we cannot necessarily back off for the sake of backing off. We have been assured by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister for International Trade that Bill C-55 is NAFTA friendly and that it will stand up with respect to the mechanisms under NAFTA. That is why the Progressive Conservative Party is supporting it.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very real pleasure for me to stand in the House today to address the very important Bill C-55. I do so on behalf of the residents of my area of Waterloo—Wellington.

This new measure will ensure that Canadian magazine publishers continue to have access to Canadian advertising revenues by regulating the advertising services supplied by foreign magazine publishers in Canada. It is important to note that this bill is in keeping with Canada's longstanding policy of promoting Canadian culture and that it respects our international trade obligations. We must have Canadian magazines that are vigorous and viable. Unless Canadians stand up for Canadian culture, no one else will.

For 40 years the federal government has supported our domestic magazine publishing industry. That cultural policy has been a clear success. Today there are more than 1,500 magazine titles published in Canada with revenues of over $1 billion. Eighteen of the top twenty magazines available here are Canadian.

It is important to note at this time that the bill that is being proposed does not affect the content of magazines. Publishers will continue to produce editorial content that they consider attractive to Canadians. It does not affect the price of magazines, for example. Canadians will continue to enjoy access to foreign and domestic magazines that are competitively priced.

The advertising revenues generated through the supply of advertising services are critical for any magazine publisher. Such revenues generate more money than subscriptions or newsstand sales combined. Without this key revenue source, editorial content cannot be created or photos purchased. Canadian magazines simply cannot survive without sufficient advertising revenues.

The government wants to ensure that Canadians continue to have access to their own ideas, stories and information. That is why Bill C-55 is important. It will ensure that Canadian magazine publishers have access to the funds they need to stay healthy and provide an essential vehicle of cultural expression. That is important to note.

The act will prohibit foreign publishers from supplying advertising services directed primarily at the Canadian market to a Canadian advertiser. We do not expect, for example, foreign publishers to respect the will of parliament and not contravene the legislation. However we need the tools to enforce it if necessary, if in fact those expectations are met.

These tools are flexible and give publishers a chance to comply with the law before more serious penalties are needed. If a foreign publisher is suspected of contravening the law, the minister has the authority to send a letter requiring that the action be halted or to demand the foreign publisher to prove that no offence has taken place. In other words, they can be let off with a warning.

However failure to comply with a letter to stop would mean that the minister could turn to the courts. The court can order the publisher then to stop publishing advertising services or other activities it deems are outside the law.

The bill provides for maximum fines to be levied against foreign publishers found by the courts to have contravened the law. Where an offence is committed by an individual there is a maximum fine as well. The level of fines must be high enough to be an effective deterrent.

This measure deals only with the supply of advertising services to Canadian advertisers. It will not affect the importation of foreign magazines. It will not affect any Canadian reader's ability to purchase foreign magazines at newsstands or through subscription. The Canadian market will continue to be one of the most open in the world. The act will not apply to foreign publishers now operating in Canada that maintain their current levels of activity. Canadian magazine publishers and Canadian cultural groups support the bill, which is something we should all note.

Canada will defend its rights as a sovereign country to develop measures designed to support our domestic cultural expression. We have negotiated rights in international trade agreements and we will defend those rights.

Bill C-55 does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-55 does not violate the NAFTA or any other international trade obligations. It has never been challenged before the WTO or in any other dispute settlement today.

American magazines cross our borders every day and Canadian magazines compete successfully for readers, despite our close proximity and common language. This is because Canadian publishers produce original content for the Canadian market, content which is of interest to Canadians. The bill is about the advertising services market and the massive cost advantages foreign publishers would enjoy.

Finally, the legislation ensures that Canadians continue to have the freedom to express and enjoy a diversity of Canadian ideas, something we should all be proud of. The new law will guarantee that Canadians will continue to have access to magazines which tell their stories to each other in their own voices. It is in keeping with Canada's longstanding cultural policies and will ensure that Canadian magazine publishers have access to the funds they need to do so.

I urge all members of the House to work for a speedy passage of Bill C-55. It is certainly something Canadians want, deserve and expect. We need to move expeditiously on it.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the amendments to Bill C-55 brought forth by the member for Dauphin—Swan River. I support these amendments because I oppose the bill for three good reasons.

The first is that on this issue the government and the heritage minister are wrong. In fact they are breaking our trade agreements. The United States in this case has every right to bring action against Canada if the legislation should proceed and be put into law. Canada is wrong in this case. The heritage minister is wrong and the government is wrong. The United States would be completely justified in doing that. That brings with it some very serious problems.

The first problem is that it would do an awful lot of damage to businesses and to workers in this country. We do not know exactly where the Americans would choose to hit. I will talk a bit about that in just a couple of minutes.

The second reason I oppose the bill is that it is not supported by Canadians. The very basic question is who supports the bill or the legislation. When we ask that question we realize it is an awfully short list. It pretty much boils down to a list of large publishing companies. That is who supports the legislation. It is not supported by most Canadians. It is not even in the top 10 list of what Canadians feel are important issues to them right now.

We know that health care is at the top of the top 10 list as is tax fairness for families. Why are we not debating legislation that would deal in a proper and meaningful way with either of those issues? We would support those issues and legislation that would make things better in those areas, but we cannot support the legislation. It just is not supported by Canadians for several reasons, but I think the main reason is that they recognize the harm that would be done to businesses and the number of jobs that would be killed in this country should the bill proceed.

Both major economic houses in the United States government have come out and very clearly said “If you pass this bill, if it becomes law, we will take action against Canadian industry, Canadian businesses”, and that will have an impact on Canadian workers.

We have a real problem with the legislation. Members of the Reform Party are not willing to allow a piece of legislation to pass which is wrong, which is not supported by Canadians, and which is a real threat to the jobs of Canadian people.

Members of parliament in the House who support the bill and do not support the amendments will have a lot of answering to do to the people in their constituencies and across the country when some of them lose their jobs because of action taken by the Americans, action which is proper, action which the Americans are completely justified to take under our trade deal.

I have a big problem with the bill. I have a problem with the heritage minister bringing forth the legislation. I will continue to oppose the legislation, no matter what squealing there is across the floor, and there is plenty of it right now.

I could talk about the steel industry, one industry the Americans have indicated they might target. The heritage minister is from Hamilton, the steel city. I could take the attitude that if action were taken against steel workers and it hurt that minister, why should I feel bad about it? In fact I would feel bad about it because we are talking about real people and real jobs.

Even to get at the heritage minister, to make her wear the shame that she should wear for bringing forth the legislation, I am not willing to sacrifice the workers of this country. It would be a real shame and wrong if steel workers end up suffering for the actions of the heritage minister and the government in the bill. I cannot support it for that reason.

I want to talk about the people back home. I am a farmer and many of the people in my constituency are farmers. Most people in the House from all parties understand the very serious situation that farmers are in right now. Most of the harm and difficulties they are facing right now are not of their own making. Farmers, above people in any other industry, have done what they should have done to be able to deal with a downturn in their industry, but what they did not count on were unfair trade practices being aimed at them.

That is what is killing their businesses and driving their commodity prices down more than anything else. It is unfair trade practices in Europe. Because of these unfair trade practices in Europe the United States has put in unfair subsidies to counter them. We also see unfair import restrictions into Asian countries such as Korea and Japan. Those too are causing severe harm to our farmers.

In my area probably 25% of hog farmers will go broke. They either have gone out of business in the past three months and will in the next six months. Over that nine month period 25% of hog farmers will be out of business. Very little of the reason is of their own making. Much of the reason is due to unfair trade on the part of other countries.

It is the same situation for alfalfa producers. Subsidies in Spain, for example, are higher than the price that our alfalfa producers receive for their commodity. That cannot be right. That is wrong and it is unfair. These unfair trade practices have to end.

For grain farmers in western Canada prices have been hit dramatically due to unfair trade practices in other countries. That is the reason. It is not poor management. It is not the inability to market their commodities well. It is not that at all. It is unfair trade practices.

Just imagine that we add to the existing problems of our farmers action taken by the Americans due to this ridiculous piece of legislation the heritage minister is bringing forth. It seems like everyone in the Liberal government, in that caucus, is willing to support it.

I am bitterly disappointed that members of the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party will support this piece of legislation. They are willing by supporting the bill to see our farmers suffer even more than they already have through reduced commodity prices and through borders being shut off. They are willing to see that suffering for a piece of legislation which will help very few people. Most of the people it would help are large publishers that do not need the help, quite frankly.

I do not understand the minister's idea that Canadian publishers cannot do well in an open and free trading environment. I have more confidence in them than that. They have done well and they will continue to do well. They do not need this piece of legislation. If they did need it and if it were unfair, if it went against the trade deal, I still could not support it. They would have to find a way of working through it.

It makes it that much easier to oppose the bill and to support the amendments knowing that in fact they are not needed. They will not help, quite frankly. Those who support the bill are saying with their vote that they are willing to see steelworkers, people from other industries and farmers who have already been hit so hard by unfair trade take another hit. I cannot allow that to happen.

Every member here had better consider the answering they will have to do to their people back home should they support the bill and their people become the ones targeted by the American trade action.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-55.

I will respond to some of the comments from the other side of the House. We heard a comment about dictatorship. This bill is about safeguarding Canadian magazines and it is about safeguarding our culture. I am amazed at how the official opposition, standing alone, is once again trying to cave in to the Americans.

In a National Post article the House leader for the Reform Party talked about rolling over. It seems to me that any rolling over is being done by the Reform Party. As soon as the Americans threaten something, the Reform Party wants to say “We surrender. Canadian culture is not important and the Canadian magazine industry is not important”.

If Reform members are the Gingriches or the Livingstons of the north, and they look to Ross Perot as an inspiration, then I can understand why some of their reasoning comes forward in the way they expound it.

In terms of the great united alternative conference, the Reform Party declared no confidence in itself. No confidence. The opposition party declared no confidence in itself. And it is finding out that the Conservative Party does not want to join in its effort to unite the right, to unite the party that wants to roll over.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite is straying a long way from the subject. Because you have not taken him to correction, I assume you are now giving permission to following speakers to speak on any subject they want on this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thought the hon. member was talking earlier in his remarks in relation to the position of the opposition on this bill. He was using the expression “rolling over” which he just used so I assume there is a connection here that is going to become manifest in a moment. Since he used the same expression, I had not thought of interrupting.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the party opposite being upset when we talk about what it means to protect and promote culture in Canada. There is no country in the world that faces the kind of challenges we face in Canada—

[An hon. member]

I guess not. They are not underneath a Liberal dictatorship.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can only ask the opposition members to quiet down a bit. Once their time comes to speak, we will all listen to them with great interest.

There is no country in the world that has the unique challenges Canada has. This bill speaks to that. That is why most of the parties in the House, with the exception of one, are supporting it.

For many years Canada has maintained a policy designed to provide Canadians with distinctive vehicles for cultural expression. These measures have balanced the need to maintain a Canadian presence on our own screens, in books, music and magazines while welcoming foreign cultural products.

Today and possibly always we will be faced with a fundamental challenge in our cultural relations with the United States. Culture is the voice that defines us as a nation. It is our heritage. It is who we are. The U.S. sees culture as an entertainment commodity with a bottom line. It is constantly trying to increase its market share across the globe.

Unlike the Reform Party, the Liberal Party does not believe that our culture is for sale. I will repeat that. Unlike the Reform Party, we do not believe in selling out our culture and we do not believe in rolling over. Because of this essential difference, we never play on the same field. We and other smaller countries must insist on making our own policies that maintain our cultural existence.

That said and despite our differences, the U.S. and Canada are neighbours, friends and each other's best trading partner. Given the vast amount of trade in goods and services which move freely across our borders, only a small percentage are subject to occasional disputes. When trade irritants do arise, the two sides have traditionally sought to resolve their differences through bilateral dialogue or if necessary, by resorting to the dispute settlement provisions in trade agreements. It is not rolling over.

Canada will defend its rights as a sovereign country to develop measures designed to support our domestic cultural expression. We have negotiated rights in international trade agreements and we will defend these rights.

Bill C-55 ensures that Canadian magazine publishers have fair access to Canadian advertising services revenues. Without these revenues, they would be unable to provide readers with the broad range of Canadian publications currently available.

Bill C-55 does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-55 does not violate the NAFTA or our other international trade obligations. It has never been challenged before the WTO or any other dispute settlement body.

Bill C-55 does not impose additional restrictions on Canadian advertisers. They will continue to enjoy the same opportunities they have always had, including access to international markets via foreign magazines.

The bill does not place restrictions on the content of magazines or of individual advertisements, or limit Canadians' access to foreign magazines.

Bill C-55 does not limit competition in the Canadian magazine industry. In fact, Bill C-55 ensures the economic viability of the Canadian magazine industry and the preservation of over 7,000 jobs for Canadian writers, artists, photographers, editors and art directors.

U.S. magazines cross our border every day and Canadian magazines compete successfully for readers, despite our close proximity and common language. This is because Canadian publishers produce original content for the Canadian market, content which is of interest to Canadians. This bill is about the advertising services market and the massive cost advantages foreign publishers would enjoy.

The legislation ensures that Canadians continue to have the freedom to express and enjoy a diversity of Canadian ideas.

The main rationale why this House with the exception of the Reform Party is in support of this legislation is that the majority of parties in this House believe that Canadian culture is worth fighting for and that Canadian culture is worth preserving.

We have to be able to tell the story. We have to be able to tell the Canadian story from a Canadian perspective from coast to coast to coast. It will do us precious little good if we have to hear what this country is about from Hollywood and the United States. That is why we are fighting to preserve Canadian culture. As long as this party is in government, we will continue to do so.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to sit in the House today and watch Liberal member after Liberal member stand and read a speech prepared for them by the office of the heritage minister. One thing that comes clear in listening to their speeches is that they do not understand what is at the very root of Bill C-55.

The fact is this is a very profound infringement on the freedoms of Canadian business. This government is taking one more huge step of intrusion into the freedom of choice that Canadian businesses have with respect to where to place their advertising dollars in this country.

After this bill is passed, Canadian businesses will not be permitted to place advertising for Canadian readers in the media area of their choice. That is what Bill C-55 is doing. It is saying that a Canadian free enterpriser, an entrepreneur, a business, whether selling goods or a service, cannot advertise in the Canadian split-run side of an American owned publishing company. They cannot target Canadian consumers or a potential market of their product in a split-run Canadian edition of an American publisher. That is what this bill is saying.

We in the official opposition came to the House in 1993. Time after time after time we have seen this government intrude further and further into the lives of Canadians, their family lives and business lives. What is it about this government that thinks it should be in control of everything in this country? Where are the individual freedoms of Canadians? Where are the individual freedoms of Canadian business?

The government is saying there will be freedoms of expression and choice in this country under this Liberal government, but there never will be freedom of choice under this Liberal government. That is what it is all about. It is about dictatorship in the strongest form. I cannot believe it. What happened to democracy? What happened to freedom of choice in this country? It is a joke.

The member said the Liberal government shall be the protector of Canadian culture, the protector of Canadianism. Let me give three examples of how the Liberals protect Canadianism.

This is the government that threatened Canadians with fines and/or imprisonment if they dared to put on the census form that they were Canadian. This is the very government that would not allow a Canadian citizen when asked what heritage they were to put the word Canadian. People were threatened with criminal fines and sanctions. Is that the great protector of Canadianism? The Liberals are a little silent now.

This same government has so little faith in the patriotism of Canadians that it spent $20 million of taxpayers' dollars to buy Canadian flags to give away free in an attempt to buy patriotism from the Canadian people. The Liberals have so little faith in the patriotism of Canadians that they thought they better give away some free Canadian flags at a cost of $20 million of taxpayers' money.

What kind of confidence in Canadianism is that from this Liberal government that now stands up as the great protector of Canadianism in this country? It is a hypocritical position for them to take in the strongest form.

This one is really the biggest joke of all. This Liberal government, these great protectors of Canadian culture and heritage—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Absolutely, protectors of Canadian culture. That's right.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

This is the same Liberal government, the same protectors of Canadian culture and heritage, that thought it would be a good idea to sell the rights to the RCMP logo to Disneyland.

[An hon. member]

Goofy of the north. That's what you boys are.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The proud heritage of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, their logo, their traditions which have been with this country for decades, which we are all proud of as Canadians, this Liberal government, these great protectors of Canadian culture and heritage, thought it would be a good idea to exploit that Canadian tradition, that Canadian heritage, for a few American dollars.

How hypocritical can they get? They stand today to call themselves the great protectors of Canadian culture. They are so quiet over there now. I think they are embarrassed. They have been caught like a rat in their own trap.

This is about profound intrusion into the rights and freedoms of Canadians. That is this government's version of how to run this country: get its fingers into everything that goes on in this country through regulations, restrictions, sanctions, impositions or whatever it can do to control every single person to do its will or to do things its way. That is the mandate of this government. It has been since Liberal hero Pierre Trudeau came on the scene. Unfortunately he is still obviously having an influence on this government.

Members of the Liberal government are these great protectors of Canadian democracy. They should be called the great intruders.

With this bill Liberals are like people walking blindfolded into a den of snakes. The heritage minister has set herself up as the czar of Canadian publishing, the czar of the industry. She thinks that she can unilaterally put this restriction on and the Americans will just roll over and play dead. Does the minister not realize for one minute the implications of what she is trying to do? Mr. Speaker, you do not play baseball with a little tennis racket when you are playing against an American team. You have to go in with a position of strength.

The minister has just put Canada in a very tenuous position. Do we think the Americans are going to roll over and play dead because of the minister's little whim? There is not a hope. We are going to see retaliation.

Perhaps the Americans should start with the plastics industry which comes right out of the riding of the Minister for International Trade. That would be a good place for the Americans to start, and they have suggested it. Perhaps they should start with the steel industry which comes right out of the riding of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. That would be a good place to start. It is going to happen. Liberals are walking blindly into this predicament in which they are going to find themselves on the short end of the stick if they keep going down this path.

It is a sad day in Canada. It is going to be a sad day for Canadian manufacturers who are going to find, no doubt, sanctions against their products entering the U.S. Most of all, I think it is really a sad day for the freedoms of this country, the freedoms for which we fought two world wars to protect to ensure that this country would be a country where if we worked hard, if we were diligent, if we were prudent in our decisions, we could succeed. But we have a government come along and say “That was just a myth. As a matter of fact, the way we do things here under a Liberal government is the way we say it should be done”.

When I heard about this bill the first thing that crossed my mind was how many in this Liberal government bought shares in the big Canadian publishing firms. Is that the real reason? Does the minister of heritage have a bunch of shares in Maclean Hunter or Rogers Communications or Time Warner? Is that the reason? Maybe it is a personal monetary thing. Maybe there is going to be a big payoff. One usually finds that when people do very irrational and dictatorial things somewhere down the paper trail one finds a dollar amount attached to it.

One has to assume that there are two reasons for this: either there are a bunch of shares owned by this government, by these caucus members, in Canadian publishers, or the Canadian publishers are and are going to become very big contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada. It is a joke.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

No.