Debates of March 8th, 1999

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say it is a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon to address the Group No. 1 amendments to Bill C-55. Unfortunately I am unable to do that due to the fact that the government, as has been referred to already during this afternoon's debate, elected to impose time allocation yet again for the 49th time.

Due to this time allocation at report stage, there is no assurance that this arrogant Liberal government will not impose time allocation as well at third reading despite what the hon. member preceding me had to say about this not being the last opportunity for hon. members on both sides of the House to address this legislation.

Due to time allocation and the reality that the clock is now at 5.05 p.m., my understanding is debate will be collapsed by this government through the use of time allocation at approximately 6.15 p.m. and we have not even got to discuss the Group No. 2 amendments. I wonder if I could have the unanimous consent of the House to move immediately to Group No. 2 amendments.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think what we have just seen is indicative of the extremely arrogant dictatorial style of this government in the fact that it refused a very reasonable request that we move on to Group No. 2 amendments.

Ironically, Group No. 2 consists of only one motion put forward by the hon. minister of heritage, the very minister who is putting forward this bill. We will quite likely never get to Group No. 2. The reality is that through the use of time allocation by this government we on this side of the House will never have the opportunity to actually debate the minister's amendment to her own bill. I think that would certainly indicate to the viewing public exactly where this government stands on the use of time allocation and how it pertains to democracy in our country.

As we have said already during the debate, this is the 49th time this government has elected to use time allocation. There were 45 times that avenue was used to shut down debate and 4 times for closure; 36 times in the 35th parliament and 13 already in less than two years in this, the 36th parliament. Shame on this government. The reality that it has elected to continuously and systemically shut down debate and limit democracy is quite appalling.

My hon. colleague from Fraser Valley was showing how some of the Liberal members, when they were on this side of the House during the reign of terror by the Tory government between 1984 and 1993, were always quick to jump to their feet whenever that government utilized time allocation or closure to ram legislation through this place. Yet these same members, many of whom are still here but who sit on the government side, are strangely mute when it comes to the use of time allocation.

There are examples of the flagrant abuse of power by this government other than the use of time allocation. Whipped votes come to mind when people think about how this government is abusing its power. We remember a year or two ago when we had the now famous flag debate where the Reform Party put forward a motion that a member should be able to have a small flag on his or her desk to denote their patriotism. It was voted down. There was a whipped vote and that motion was voted down.

We saw it with the hepatitis C issue where again the Reform Party was trying to get compensation for all hepatitis C victims. Again the government whip got all the backbenchers to fall into line and vote it down. Just last month the Reform Party put forward a supply motion concerning the child porn situation in British Columbia and how we wanted to use the notwithstanding clause to prevent those who would view child porn from possessing that type of despicable material. Again, a whipped vote and all of the Liberals fell into line and voted against that very important motion.

Tomorrow we will see the same type of thing take place when we have the Reform motion concerning the unfair tax policy and how it discriminates against single income families that elect to have one parent stay at home, work in the home and raise and guide their children.

What I am trying to point out is that unfortunately for Canada and the Canadian general public there are many examples of where this arrogant Liberal government is abusing the power it has been granted by the electorate. It is operating in a very dictatorial manner.

In that light I would like to quote from a publication called “Governing with Integrity”:

The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable. There is evidence today of considerable dissatisfaction with government and a steady erosion of confidence in the people and institutions of the public sector.

This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes. Some have to do with the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political leadership.

A Liberal government will take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of government.

One of the steps cited on page 92 is that more free votes will be allowed in the House of Commons. What I am quoting from is what has become known as the infamous Liberal red book on the policies they ran under in the 1993 election. Unfortunately for Canada they were elected to their first majority government in October 1993.

In the short time I have remaining one thing I would like to briefly refer to is of real concern to me. One of the most disturbing trends we have seen lately is the drop in the electoral turnout at the ballot boxes.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member mentioned that he is short of time. I have been watching the clock and it seems to me that for seven or eight minutes he has been dealing with matters such as whipped votes. He is now bringing up the turnout of voters at the ballot boxes. Is he debating Bill C-55 at all?

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, while we once again have a point of order from the Liberals who do not like to hear this, the fact is Bill C-55 has been subject to time allocation by this government. We feel every right to undertake the privilege in the House to talk to the abuse of Bill C-55 which is indeed time allocation in as much as the content of the bill.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it would be fair for the hon. member to retract his statement made a few moments ago that all members voted with our party on the matter of porn. We did not. There were four members who did not.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

These observations are really not points of order.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, in reply to the last point of order, I retract my statement about the child porn vote. I recognize the oversight that there were four Liberal members who had some courage and actually stood up and voted with the opposition on that motion. My apologies to those four members. Unfortunately we do not see enough of them break ranks and follow the lead of those four so that we can get those types of motions passed in this place.

In the minute or so I have remaining I point out to the hon. deputy whip of the government that when I started my intervention this afternoon, I did ask for unanimous consent to move forward and debate his minister's amendment. It was he himself who refused to allow me to voice my concerns about this amendment. It should not come as a surprise that therefore I elect to voice my concerns about the dictatorial manner in which this government operates.

There is ample evidence to suggest that voter turnout at the ballot box has declined in the last two elections from about 75%, which is the long term average, to about two-thirds. That is a dramatic drop in the number of Canadians who actually turn up to cast a ballot.

I would suggest that one of the very real reasons cynicism is running so deep in Canada today is because of autocratically run governments. The average voter sees no point in turning out to cast a ballot.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to enter the debate this afternoon on Bill C-55.

The previous speaker about a year ago attempted to make a whole charade out of our national flag. It was something that really upset me at the time. As some may know, I have been very supportive of our flag. I tried to create a flag day. It is interesting that when that issue was before committee Reform did not support any of the initiatives. If we went back a year ago the flag that would be of choice for Reform members to have on their desks would be the stars and stripes.

Bill C-55 is about ensuring that we have Canadian culture in Canada. There are 30 million Canadians and there are 300 million Americans. Many of our people live within 100 miles of the U.S. border and are bombarded by American communication.

That does not mean it is a bad thing, but it makes it very difficult to build on what Canadians have built, an extremely dynamic, independent and sovereign country on the northern half of the North American continent.

Trade negotiation is just that. I was recently in the United States and there was no press coverage whatsoever about Canada's debate over maintaining its cultural industries through the use of Bill C-55. We are talking about a $400 million expenditure on advertising, which means nothing, quite frankly, to the Americans. The debate in the United States was about steel and steel importation.

Those members jump up, one after the other, saying “Look at all the awful things the Americans are going to do to us if we pass this $400 million piece of legislation. They are going to embargo our steel. They are going to embargo our softwood lumber. They are going to embargo our wheat”. Quite frankly, the Americans want to do that anyway. It has nothing to do with Bill C-55.

When I was in the United States the debate was all about the steel industry, Bethlehem Steel. For members who are doing the bidding of the Americans, I would tell them that it is a lot cheaper to pay lobbyists to go to Washington to lobby the government, Mr. Clinton and the special trade representative, Ms. Barshefsky, than to build an efficient steel industry in the United States. The U.S. has old, inefficient operations.

If these members who love the Americans so much were concerned about their economy, they would be arguing that the Americans should be more competitive, allow Canadian steel more access to the American market and allow Canadian softwood lumber more access to the Canadian market because it would make them more efficient.

We do not want them to hide behind uneconomic trade barriers. Uneconomic trade barriers beat up on everybody. They use power to control their economy and to beat up their competitors.

This whole debate is about how they are going to beat up on us. It has nothing to do with cultural policy. It would not take the Americans five seconds if they thought that Disneyland or the Disney corporation was under the threat of competition within the United States to ensure that those industries in the United States were taken care of.

They have 97% of our film industry. The debate is about getting the other 3%. This is a ridiculous, idiotic debate and I am surprised at members opposite who seem to want to support that kind of initiative.

They talk about democracy. The reality is that Ms. Barshefsky does not represent the American people. She represents particular special interest groups, called American industry, which want protection. It is not just the Canadian steel producers. In fact they are the last people on their list. They want to attack Korean steel, Japanese steel and steel coming from southeast Asia.

Members should look at Bethlehem Steel or the steel operations in Pennsylvania. The reality is that the Americans have not paid the price to keep them efficient. They have not been efficient producers and they are being out competed. The Americans are supposed to be the great competitors. They believe in free competition. They believe in free markets, except when there are others coming into their market. Then they believe in securing their market and keeping the other guy out.

These people today are supporting the American agenda to basically build walls around the United States. They do not want us to compete in their market, but they sure want to compete in ours.

Does everybody remember the softwood lumber issue? The Americans successfully created quotas against the importation of Canadian softwood lumber. The Americans said that we could take them to the WTO and we would probably win. It is the same thing with this issue. If it were to go to the WTO, we would probably win.

But guess what? They could place embargoes on our exports to the United States. That could go on for three years in a court determined process and even if the Americans had to pay penalties by keeping artificially high prices on softwood lumber within the United States it would be a money maker.

What happened with softwood lumber? Canada ended up with quotas.

Those people over there are supporting that kind of agenda. Let the bully win. Do not do anything to the bully. Do his bidding for him. That is the Reform Party's agenda. Those people claimed to wrap themselves in the flag a year ago and today they refuse to protect Canadian culture.

I do not like to use the word protection. I do not believe in protectionism myself. What I do believe is that Canada has an emerging cultural industry. Canadians want to tell their stories to each other. They want to have media, a communications network and magazines that tell Canadian stories.

Over the years Canadians have been happy and willing to step forward and pay that price because that is what we are. That is part of our Canadian heritage.

Day in and day out it is incredible what we hear from members of the Reform Party. The other day we were talking about tax policy and they said “I guess you have to pay Uncle Sam some day”. That is their thought process. It is in their brain power. They do not even know what country they are living in. They have accepted the American agenda to such a great extent that they are standing up for it. They are not standing up for their constituents, they are standing up for a secular interest group, the American industry. They are the tool of American industry.

I do not know who exactly owns those oil fields in Alberta. I do not know what signs are over the gas stations out there. But they have been doing this for so long that they are committed to coming to the House to support the United States of America against their own people.

It makes me feel very good to support this legislation. The sooner we can put this into effect, the better it will be for my constituents and all Canadians.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak directly to Bill C-55. A lot of what I have to say directly involves time allocation.

To me there are too many issues. With this magazine bill the heritage minister is setting Canada up for U.S. trade retaliation. We all know that and the government knows that. With the risk of trade retaliation there is the risk of losing jobs, in particular jobs in the minister's own riding.

One thing that perplexes me is why a government would continue with this knowing full well that there are trade sanctions on the way.

The other thing is that when she bans Canadian advertisers from selling their goods and services in foreign magazines the minister is telling Canadian advertisers that when it comes to freedom of speech they are second class citizens.

That still does not seem to affect this government when it comes to doing what it damn well pleases in the House of Commons, regardless of how it affects people in other jurisdictions. It is really sad.

I want to comment on an issue which my colleague from Prince George—Peace River brought up recently. He stood in the House a few minutes ago looking for unanimous consent from members opposite to move to the Group 2 amendments. Perhaps the folks out there do not understand what that is, but really what he wanted to do was get off the debate on the amendments that were proposed by the Reform Party and on to the debate of an amendment proposed by the minister.

Members opposite declined. Basically what that says is that the minister has an amendment to the bill which will not even be debated. For the life of me, I do not understand why the government would take that approach. What is it about debate in the House of Commons that we are not allowed to have?

For the people who do not understand what time allocation is, it is a way of preventing further debate on an issue because the government wants to put through a bill.

As people will have heard, there have been a lot of bills which have had time allocation placed on them. We must consider those bills and how much time we actually had to speak on them. I want to talk about a couple of them.

Bill C-36 came before the House at report stage. The official opposition had 50 minutes of debate before the government brought in time allocation. What kind of debate is that? In the House of Commons the government says “You have had your 50 minutes. Let us go ahead and do something else. We are going to push this through at this stage”.

I can tell hon. members what is going to happen. The government is at the end of the line on this issue. We have now had 49 bills on which time has been limited and we are about to get number 50. As House leader I am sick and tired of sitting in House leaders' meetings listening to the fact that closure after closure, time allocation after time allocation, is going to occur and we will just damn well have to accept it.

That is not the way it is going to be. It may be time, and I think it is time, for the official opposition to say “Rather than your 50 minutes or your two hours of debate from us, maybe we will just close you down and see how you like that. Maybe we will just stall all of your bills. Maybe it is time for committees that want to travel to get in here and debate the bill because we will not allow that travel”.

I think it is time to talk turkey. Enough is enough. When we want to talk at length about important bills such as Bill C-55, we do not expect to come into the House and have the government say “We do not want you to debate this any more. You have already had on this bill three hours and 35 minutes and that is enough”. That is unacceptable. We will tell this government that it is not enough.

It is time to get ready for some serious turkey talk in the House. There are other bills. Bill C-2 was on the Canada pension plan and we wanted to debate this at length. It turns out that at the time of second reading on Bill C-2 the official opposition had 1 hour and 41 minutes debate on the Canada pension plan before this government decided we had had enough to say about it.

I was looking in the library recently at the debates which took place in the House of Commons in the 1960s under Diefenbaker. They debated it at length. There was no such thing as bringing in closure or time allocation. This was an important issue for all of Canada, so let us debate it and determine where things are going. What happens? We talk about it for 1 hour and 41 minutes and the government says that is enough. That is a disgrace. I wonder if they can understand on the other side how we feel about that. That was second reading.

Then we go to Bill C-2 on report stage and third reading. The government must have given a lot more time on that. It turns out the official opposition had 1 hour and 20 minutes before the government called time allocation.

I think the hon. member will stand up and talk about relevance in a minute on a point of order. About $1 billion in trade is done by Canada and the United States every day. That is relevant to Bill C-55.

What is more relevant to Bill C-55 is this outrageous situation where we have the official opposition reduced to about an hour and a half of debate on bills that we think are important. We just do not understand how this government can bring in useless bills, and I mean lots of useless bills, yet when we get to something important it calls time allocation on it.

The only way the government is getting away with this is because it has a majority government and because people outside the House of Commons do not realize what time allocation and closure really are. It is really a sad day when a government pulls this.

This government has called time allocation and closure on bills so often that we will hit 50 times since the Liberals have formed the government in 1993. That is two years ahead of the Tories. Imagine. They have a worse record than Brian Mulroney on this by two years. I guess absolute power corrupts absolutely.

When we get a majority government like this it feels that it can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. It is a sad commentary on what we call a democracy. We who came here from the west thought we would go down to Ottawa and speak on behalf of our constituents and talk about the issues that are near and dear to them. We did not realize that when we came here we would be short shifted on these issues.

For those who are listening to these comments, 1 hour and 20 minutes debate is only about three or four people who get to talk about these things. On Bill C-65 which has to do with equalization and about $10 billion, which is coming up and we understand that time allocation again is coming in on that, we have just had 3 hours and 35 minutes debate. That is $10 billion, 3 hours and 35 minutes debate, and that is probably about seven or eight people. We all want to talk about that here, not just some of us.

I hereby give this government notice that I am about up to here with this time allocation business. It can look forward to one heck of a fight in the House of Commons if I see it any more. I understand it is coming in once more this week and if it does, this government may be prepared for a long haul between now and June.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to talk about Bill C-55, the foreign publishers advertising services act. It will regulate advertising services supplied by foreign magazine publishers to Canadian advertisers where such services are directed at the Canadian market.

The new law will ensure that Canadian magazine publishers continue to have access to Canadian advertising revenues which are necessary for the survival of our periodical publishing industry.

Advertising revenues from the supply of advertising services are the main source of revenue for magazine publishers. They finance the production of editorial content, the purchase of photographs and much more. Without such revenues there would be no original Canadian content. Therefore access to revenues from the supply of advertising services is critical to the continued production of Canadian stories and of information of interest to Canadians.

Since Confederation Canada has preserved, promoted and enhanced cultural identity through mass media. Canada's longstanding cultural policies have supported the creation and communication of Canadian ideas, stories and information through the establishment of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, our National Film Board and a host of other organizations that give voice to Canadian stories and Canadian culture.

As well, Canada's cultural policies have played a key role in cultivating a vibrant, domestic magazine publishing industry. In 1996 Canadian publishers produced 1,500 magazines and sold 539 million copies and generated revenues of more than $1 billion. Of the magazines in circulation in Canada, the percentage of Canadian magazine titles has grown from 20% in 1956 to 65% in 1997.

In a land as vast as ours and given our rich cultural diversity, Canadian magazines are a powerful vehicle for expression in the sharing of stories, information and perspectives. Canadian magazines help define who we are and enable us to read about ourselves in our own voices as well as share Canada with those who live outside our borders.

In a world that technology continues to shrink it is critical that the federal government continue to support our domestic magazine publishing industry so that the creation and sharing of Canadian stories and Canadian perspectives will thrive.

With more than 250 million English speaking Americans to our south there is no shortage of American stories coming into Canada. From U.S. magazines we would not hear about Canada Day or St. Jean Baptiste Day or celebrating Thanksgiving in October. Nor would we hear about the details of Canadian bank mergers or the challenges of gardening in our northern climate. What we would hear is the perspectives and interests of other nations and other people.

This measure is not about excluding foreign magazines from our domestic market to enjoy hearing what others have to say, and we will continue to do that. In fact, Canada imports more American magazines than the rest of the world combined. Canadians also want to be able to read about themselves, their communities and their country. This is clearly demonstrated in the fact that 18 of the top 20 magazines in circulation within our borders are Canadian.

We must make sure that Canadian publishers have access to advertising revenues. Because of the relatively small size of our market, one-tenth the size of the U.S., a strong domestic advertising revenue base is required to support the creation of distinctly Canadian magazines. This way we can ensure that Canadian magazines help project our stories to our own citizens as well as to others around the world.

This new bill is really about choice, choice for Canadians to benefit from Canadian voices, perspectives and shared experiences.

As I mentioned, and this is very important for anyone watching this debate, we are not excluding others from our domestic market. Rather, Bill C-55 will result in a secure advertising base for Canadian magazine publishers. This in turn will ensure that this vibrant cultural industry continues to provide distinctive expressions, distinctive vehicles for expressions which are distinctly Canadian.

Therefore I urge all members to seek speedy passage of this bill. I also urge opposition members and all those speaking on this debate to give Canadians watching this debate and the Americans and others watching this debate the facts. The fact is it is important for Canadians to have the opportunity to read and hear about Canadian expressions and Canadian stories.

I have had a number of calls from residents in the constituency of Thornhill. Many of them have expressed to me their concerns. When my children were small I searched for Canadian publications and magazines. At that time there were not nearly as many as there are today. They are here today because there is a demand for them within Canada. The fact that we have a relatively small market means we need to do what we can to ensure that they will be here not only for today but for future generations. It is therefore my pleasure to participate in this very important debate.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

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.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to point out to the House on the limiting of the debate that nearly two dozen Reform members of parliament have already spoken on this bill. Having heard many of them just at this one stage of the bill, I know that the same things have been said nearly two dozen times over. Nothing new is being added to the debate.

I should point out to Canadians who are listening that there was also second reading at which many Reform members spoke. There will also be third reading at which many more Reform members will speak. It is hardly the fault of the government if in all those opportunities, nearly 50 in total, the Reform Party has not been able to get across its message to Canadians.

The other thing I need to correct in the member's speech is the fact that we are trying to limit the choice of Canadians. There is no foreign magazine that will not be allowed in Canada. If having 80% of the magazines on our newsstands that are American magazines is not enough choice for Canadians, I would be extremely surprised.

I want to talk about what it means to me to be Canadian. My father chose to come to this country nearly 70 years ago. He chose Canada. He was very clear about why he did not choose to become an American. He believed in the different values this country has, values that we as Canadians share from coast to coast to coast. Before I could learn to speak, I knew how lucky I was to be a Canadian. That is why I am in this parliament, to follow in the great traditions of the people who sat in this chamber before us and of those who will come after us, to preserve what this country stands for, not only for Canadians but for the world.

I am a believer in competition too. But there is no fair competition when an American magazine can produce absolutely no new literary product in Canada, yet can come here and steal revenue from Canadian magazines, making it impossible for them to survive in the marketplace and to continue communicating with and to Canadians what this country is about.

The American magazines can mass produce for the American market, send the same magazine into Canada and therefore discount or subsidize their advertising rates in Canada. It is called predatory pricing. This government is here not to allow Canadian magazines to be put out of business by that kind of unfair competition.

What is very clear to me is that we also cannot be bullied. When it comes to doing what is best for this country, we cannot be bullied by threats against other products in this country. We have to stand up against that. We have to stand up for the right of the Government of Canada to govern in the interests of this country and its people.

Of course what we have with Reform is a party that really wishes this country were American. It is quite simple. The Reform Party wants things like recall and referendums. It wants elected representatives of this country to be the captives of well heeled, well financed, very powerful lobby groups. That is who benefits from the kind of policies the Reform Party advocates.

I suggest that the Reform Party listen to Canadians. Listen to the debate that took place, first with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, then with NAFTA, then with MAI, and then with our involvement in the World Trade Organization. What Canadians said among other things was that they want to be able to protect Canadian culture.

As the world globalizes, we have one superpower in this world, a superpower that is reaching into every culture, every economy of the globe. Countries have to be able to stand up and protect their individual identity. We are prepared to stand up to 80% competition from foreign magazines and publications with fair competition.

The Reform Party says to let the marketplace decide. Look at the history of the country. The marketplace would never have built a railway across vast empty spaces to create a united country from Atlantic to Pacific.

The marketplace would never have created a communications network so that people in the far northern reaches of this country could be part of what Canadians were saying to each other, what was important to us and what we were talking about among ourselves.

The marketplace would never have created a national airlines so that we could travel and do business and visit relatives anywhere in the country.

The marketplace would never have said that it wanted a certain amount of Canadian content on our radio and television stations because it would have been afraid that featuring Canadian artists and performers would limit its profits. When those Canadian content regulations came in I have to say I was one who did not particularly favour them. I spoke much as the member might have at the time and I said that Canadian artists are good enough, they do not need a Canadian kindergarten to protect them from competition.

I knew within six months that I was wrong because I was hearing Canadian singers on my radio. I had never heard them before. Without those content regulations, we would not have had Anne of Green Gables , we would not have had Anne Murray, we would not have had Gordon Lightfoot, and we would not have had Shania Twain, Alanis Morissette and Céline Dion at the Grammys.

It may take members of the Reform Party a similar 30 years to admit that they were wrong, but we on this side of the House are here to make sure that there will be Canadian magazines for our children and grandchildren. There will be Canadian performers. There will be Canadian transportation and communications systems. We will not give up the great Canadian dream just because the Reform Party would rather we were Americans. That is the dream my father came to this country for. That is the dream I will protect as long as I live.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are here this afternoon debating amendments put forth by the Reform Party. What we have here and what Canadians had to listen to is somewhat embarrassing.

We have Reformers kowtowing to the U.S., having us run scared from a free trade agreement that they fully supported and continue to support. We have the Liberals dancing around the trade agreement.

Many Canadians, and certainly New Democrats, foresaw our culture being threatened and the bill is proof that our culture is not protected. The bill is not perfect but it is an attempt by the Liberals to at least right some of the wrongs brought about by free trade.

Throughout this debate I have also heard Reform cry “let the market decide”. The situation Canadians have seen themselves in is certainly the marketplace throughout Canada. With the Asian crisis, everybody was saying “Oh, my gosh, we let the market decide”.

Since today is International Women's Day and we know we have to let the market decide and be part of globalization, I want to take this opportunity to let the market decide and to let Canadians decide if they want to be part of that. I watched a news documentary in which a fellow by the name of Robert Ohuras who was representing an American company in Juaréz, Mexico, was commenting on a request that was made to change the hours women and young girls had to work in plants or in factories owned by Canadians and American companies.

The bodies of 200 women have been found outside in the desert Juaréz. There was a request made to change their hours of work so that they would not have to walk home at 1 a.m. Mr. Ohuras' response was “Don't forget why these companies are in Mexico. They must be globally competitive. They need to have flexible hours”.

Do we need to let the market decide? Any time Reformers want to let the market decide, I want them to think of these women. This is all part of it. When the market is the only thing left to be the deciding factor, that is the outcome.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to address my colleagues, as well as all Canadians, with respect to Bill C-55, the Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act.

This bill will make it an offence for foreign periodical publishers to sell advertising services on the Canadian market. This is an important legislative measure for the Canadian periodical publishing industry, because it will protect the health of this important cultural industry.

Revenues from advertising services are vital to any periodical publisher. Without them, periodicals would simply not exist. Revenues from advertising services pay for such things as editorial content, the cost of photos, and the development of new talent.

Bill C-55 will ensure that Canadian publishers have access to the limited advertising revenue in our country. They will thus continue to bring Canadians a wealth of diversified articles, information and viewpoints about their own country.

Over the years, the Canadian periodical publishing industry has played a very important role in developing our cultural identity. With the support of the federal government, the industry has grown.

Forty years ago, there were 660 Canadian periodicals, with an annual circulation of 28 million copies, representing 20% of all periodicals sold in Canada. Today, there are over 1,500 periodicals, with a circulation of 539 million, representing 65% of all periodicals sold in Canada.

In 1996-97, the Canadian publishing industry brought in over $1 billion, and provided jobs for close to 6,000 Canadians. This industry illustrates the success of Canada's cultural policy, which is why it is important to support this bill.

I want to point out that over 60% of all revenues reported, or $647 million, came from advertising, and this can go as high as 80% and up for general and special-interest periodicals. Paid subscriptions and newsstand sales are not enough to ensure the survival of periodicals.

Members have surely all had periodicals distributed free to their home or office. These are made possible by the sale of advertising services.

Advertising revenues are vital, as I will explain. Each page of advertising pays for one page of editorial content. American publishers have a net competitive advantage over their Canadian counterparts when it comes to supplying advertising services to Canada. This is because they can recycle content for the Canadian market. Furthermore, the size of the American market is conducive to economies of scale in the periodical industry. Bill C-55 seeks to address this unfair situation.

Parliament must ensure the economic survival of the Canadian periodical publishing industry and the continued prosperity of Canadian publishers.

As the Minister of Canadian Heritage said, periodicals differ from other products, in that they are vehicles for the expression of our unique views and experiences. We want those views and experiences to be heard.

The bill will not make it difficult to import foreign periodicals. In this regard, our country is one of the most open in the world. The United States exports more periodicals into Canada than do all other countries combined. Foreign publishers will be able to go on selling their periodicals without restriction in Canada, and Canadians will have the same access to foreign periodicals they have always had.

The new legislation will simply ensure that Canadian periodical publishers have access to the advertising revenues they need to create periodicals that give voice to our own cultural identity.

Canada is very aware of the advantages and opportunities of increased globalization, and intends to promote international trade and establish corresponding rules.

Canada also intends to support our cultural diversity, in which periodicals play an important role. We believe that these two goals can coexist.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill quickly because, as we have mentioned throughout the debate, it is important for all Canadians and for Canadian jobs.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate the government deputy whip suggested that further debate on the bill was pointless. She noted that about a dozen Reformers had spoken and the debate was repetitive.

I would like to take a look for a minute at time allocation statistics. For example, on Bill C-36 at report stage and third reading Reform only had 50 minutes of debate on that bill before time allocation was moved. There was a total of two hours and 15 minutes of debate before time allocation was moved. The total time of debate before and after time allocation on Bill C-36 was only three hours of debate by the official opposition, for a total of nine hours and 12 minutes of debate.

On Bill C-36 at second reading Reform only spoke for one hour and six minutes before time allocation was moved.

On Bill C-43 Reform spoke for an hour and 56 minutes before time allocation was moved, and the total debate time on that bill was 3 hours and 19 minutes out of a total of 11 hours and 25 minutes.

These bills are important bill. Bill C-36 was the budget implementation bill. Bill C-43 was the custom and revenue agency bill. Not small potatoes but important bills which the Canadian public expected to be debated in the House.

At second reading on Bill C-2, the Canada pension plan, the official opposition only spoke for an hour and 41 minutes. When time allocation was called Reform had only spoken for an hour and 51 minutes out of a total of 11 hours and 15 minutes of debate time. That is not much time.

On Bill C-2 at report stage and third reading the official opposition again only spoke for an hour and 20 minutes before time allocation was moved. The total debate time was two hours and 45 minutes.

There are a lot of people concerned about the Canada pension plan. We saw earlier where the Minister of Finance removed the individual who was responsible for doing the numbers on the Canada pension plan. He did not want the real straight goods on it and he did not want debate to go on in the House on that very important bill.

Bill C-4 respecting the wheat board is important to Canadians on the prairies. Reform had a total of eight hours debate on that bill before time allocation was moved. There was much to be said about that bill. There were many problems with it. It was of great interest to Canadians on the prairies.

On Bill C-3, the DNA bill, Reform had two hours and 15 minutes of debate time before time allocation was moved.

These kinds of numbers are simply unacceptable in a democratic society. This place is supposed to be about debate. It is supposed to be about discussion of ideas. We are supposed to debate the principles behind these bills and what they mean to Canadian people. We are not supposed to get into derogatory personal comments and we do not. We debate the issues. That is what it is supposed to be about. That is what we are talking about in these bills, the issues at hand. Yet if the government continually moves time allocation, what is the point of being here?

The other day when time allocation was moved on a justice bill my colleague from Wild Rose said “We might as well turn this over to the judges. There is no point in even being in this place to try to express the interests and the concerns of the Canadian public”.

On the equalization bill, Bill C-65, there were three hours and 35 minutes of debate at second reading before time allocation was moved. It is an important bill, a bill that is especially important to the province of British Columbia which suffers under a socialist government. Its economy is in a nose dive and I do not think we have seen bottom. Yet we are required under the equalization bill to continue paying the piper.

The bill before us today is an important one. It is a bill that has a lot to do with the health of Canadian industry. It is a bill which fails to recognize that about $1 billion a day of trade is done between Canada and the United States. That does not mean to say that we have to capitulate to every American complaint and everything that Americans do not find satisfactory. Far from it. What it does say is that we have to be reasonable.

Not only is this bill not reasonable, but it fails to recognize that Canadians can fend for themselves, that there is a place in the market for Canadian performers, and that there is a place in the market in Canada for Canadian magazines. They will be supported by Canadians. Canadians want to hear what other Canadians have to say about events in the world. They want to hear about what Canadians have to say about events taking place in this country. They are not prepared to simply go to U.S. sources and publications for news and items of interest to Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.