Debates of March 8th, 1999

Petitions

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, I have the honour to table a petition asking that the government withdraw its appeal of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision on equal pay within the public service and that it implement that decision without further delay.

This petition goes along with those presented by my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 164 and 181. .[Text]

Question No. 164—

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Can the Department of Human Resources Development provide clarification on a recent incident in one of its offices, in St. Clair, British Columbia, where a francophone employee was apparently prevented from replying in French to a francophone client?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

The Government of Canada strongly supports the rights of francophones outside Quebec to get service in their own language, where there is a population that needs it.

When Human Resources Development Canada, HRDC, began to consolidate its offices in 1997, it consulted with the Vancouver community to see where and how they would like the department to set up a bilingual office.

A review of the most appropriate location for the provision of bilingual services was also needed. A town hall meeting was held in French to provide an opportunity for the francophone community to provide input on service consolidation plans and especially which office shold be responsible for providing bilingual services. Invitations were extended to all francophone associations in the greater Vancouver area and efforts were made to ensure participants were representatives of all HRDC's client groups. The Sinclair office's bilingual staff were also invited. Due to the length of time that has elapsed since the meeting was held, it is not known whether staf from the Sinclair office were in attendance. However, all participants attending the town hall meeting expressed the preference that bilingual services should be provided in a full service Human Resources Centre of Canada, HRCC, and their choice was HRCC Vancouver. Also, a study of the demographics of the francophone population clearly showed that the majority of francophones were living in the HRCC Vancouver area.

Based on the process outlined above, bilingual service was trasferred to HRCC Vancouver in October 1997. Advertisements were placed in the local French paper and on radio station CBUF-FM to communicate where bilingual service was available. A letter was also sent to all francophone clients to inform them of this move.

There are currently 20 points of service designated as bilingual service sites in British Columbia. Nine of these are in Vancouver. Of the nine, there is only one HRCC which is fully bilingual. Along with the one bilingual HRCC in Vancouver, the infocentres, Labour Canada, income security and regional offices are designated bilingual.

In the case of the Sinclair office, even though the office is designated unilingual English, employees are encouraged by management to respond in the language of the client when the need arises. This ensures that quality services are offered to all clients. It is HRDC's policy to designate bilingual positions in unilingual offices if the work entails services that are to be provided in both languages. This policy is in accordance with official languages regulations. In the incident mentioned by Radio Canada, this policy was regrettably not followed.

Question No. 181—

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Regarding the National Philatelic Centre of Canada Post: ( a ) is Canada Post planning to issue a stamp in honour of Queen Elizbeth and Prince Philip's 50th wedding anniversary; and ( b ) is Canada Post planning to issue a stamp in honour of Prince Charles' 50th birthday?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

(a) The 50th wedding anniversary of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and His Royal Highness Prince Philip occurred in 1997. As Canada Post commemorates anniversaries in the year in which they occur, the corporation does not intend to issue a stamp on that subject in 1999. However, the corporation issued a new stamp in January 1999, bearing the image of Her majesty, to correspond with the new basic lettermail rate of 46¢.

(b) The Sovereign is the only living person who can be the sole subject of a postage stamp.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

With your permission, I shall return to petitions with the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic.

Petitions

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of constituents of Frontenac—Mégantic, who believe sincerely in male-female equality and in justice, I have the honour to table a petition demanding that the federal government withdraw its appeal against the public service pay equity decision and give effect to the court ruling that it pay its employees what it owes them.

This petition goes with the ones presented by my colleagues from Longueuil and Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Group No. 1.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act

[The Speaker]

The astute and erudite hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier had seven minutes remaining.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, prior to Oral Question Period, I was speaking to the bill under consideration, Bill C-55, an act to protect the Canadian periodical industry.

I mentioned that, contrary to what certain members of the Reform Party were saying, our neighbours to the south, the Americans, do not have the right, with impunity as our colleagues were indicating, to impose sanctions or to retaliate, because they too are party to international trade agreements, such as NAFTA and the WTO.

There are rules and procedures, and if the Americans wanted to retaliate, they too would have to comply, despite what the Reform Party members are saying.

I also mentioned that we on the government side are not prepared to hand certain sectors of our industry priority over others. The government does not share the opinion of some members of the official opposition who do not consider Canadian culture worth fighting for. Both agriculture, which is vital to our economy, as I mentioned, and Canada's culture, which is vital to the well-being of our psyche, must be protected.

As I was saying, one feeds the body, the other, the mind. Unfortunately, our Reform colleagues are not quite as concerned as they might be about the food for the mind that Canada's culture represents.

I would also like to take them up on another mistaken notion. Two weeks ago, with colleagues from the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I visited Thunder Bay and the western cities of Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Vancouver and White Horse. My colleague, who is the official opposition critic, toured the eastern part of the country with the other half of the standing committee.

In the western leg of the trip, the Canadian public was very outspoken and supportive in its comments about the need for this bill, once again contrary to what Reform Party members have said.

Canadians generally are very aware of the importance of having strong Canadian cultural industries that are able to compete with other countries.

This brings me to another point that our colleagues are unable or perhaps unwilling to understand. We are not talking about undue protection. We are talking about drawing up ground rules that are fair to everyone.

We are not here suggesting that our magazine industry cannot compete, as members of the Reform Party might be suggesting. It is not that at all. It can and has done so over the last 30 years. Our industry has developed quite well because we have had a level playing field in place and we insist on maintaining such a level playing field.

It is not level when one competitor has an incredible advantage of having overhead costs that 70% less than the overhead costs of the Canadian publishers. That is the essence of a split-run edition. They cover the costs of preparing the edition. They come into a country. They take out the pages that carry ads and which are replaced by other ads. They can undercut the market greatly without necessarily adding anything of any significance or value to the Canadian cultural aspect of what these people are trying to do. In most instances that is what has happened. It is not a fair or level playing field.

Under a fair and equitable competitive system our magazine industry will compete with any other in the world. It is not fair if its competitors have a 70% overhead cost advantage.

The other thing the Reform Party seems to forget is that it is indeed a unique relationship in terms of Canada and the U.S. and the magazine industry.

Eighty to ninety per cent of the magazines exported by our American neighbours are exported in one country only, Canada, because of the proximity and in a number of provinces similarity of language. Therefore there is a great deal of affinity in the market. That does not seem to satisfy them. They want more.

They control over 50% of our market. They have 80% of our shelf space. It is not enough. They want more. When the Americans say “if you do this we will do that so back off”, Reformers say “we do not want to protect, we will back off and the 6,000 people who happen to work in this industry, too bad for them, so sorry, so sad, we are not prepared to do that”.

We will stand by the magazine industry in this country as we have in the past. Members think this bill is exclusively from the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It is not. Do not make that mistake. It is a bill supported by the government and members on this side of the House and we will see soon enough on that.

[An hon. member]

And three other parties.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you to my colleague, and three other parties on the other side of the House.

I conclude with a question. I wish anyone who has thought about this debate, this bill, this issue would ask themselves this question and answer it fair and honestly. It is a very simply question.

Which foreign publication, which American magazine, is not allowed into this country? I dare any member of the House to find a foreign or an American publication to be more precise that is not allowed in this country. They will not. It is a totally open market. We are not restricting any American publication or magazine from coming into the country. Canadians can buy any American magazine they wish to buy on almost any news stand and yet that seems not to be good enough for the members opposite. Why?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before we resume debate I wonder if we could now revert, with the consent of the House, to applications for emergency debate so that I can deal with a matter raised by the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Request For Emergency Debate

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, from what we just heard from the hon. member from across the way, he and his government basically missed the point.

My application for an emergency debate deals with the issue of risk this government is putting Canadians at with Bill C-55. In fact, the faster it fast tracks this piece of legislation, the greater the risk.

I believe a billion dollars worth of retaliation will impact hugely right across this country, probably up to 45,000 jobs. This is from a paper on international trade. I can submit this later on.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair has reviewed the letter submitted by the hon. member in support of his argument that there should be an emergency debate on this subject and has concluded that it does not meet the exigencies of the standing order at this time. Accordingly it is not permitted.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Group No. 1.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening all day to a lot of passionate debate on both sides of the House about Bill C-55, although frankly a lot of the comments have very little to do with Bill C-55.

The debate seems to have taken some directions far beyond what was ever contemplated by Bill C-55.

We have been hearing the Reform Party trying to strike fear into the hearts of Canadians that if we have the temerity or the gall to do anything to protect sovereignty we will be smashed by our American neighbours, that tanks are going to roll across the border and devastate our steel industry and our plastic industry as if we are supposed to cower at this great force, that we do not have the wherewithal to look after industries that we care about; not only industries we care about but our Canadian cultural sovereignty.

I asked for an opportunity to speak to this today because I have always seen myself as a fiercely proud Canadian nationalist, almost too far that way sometimes I have been told. I am very proud and I really regret the fact that this country has moved away from some of the positions we used to take in terms of looking after Canadian industries.

I have been reading a book recently, 1967 , by Pierre Berton. He talks about Canada as it was in 1967 and the government of the day. It talks about leaders of that time, politicians like Walter and Duncan Gordon and Paul Martin Sr., people willing to take real steps to something about the foreign takeover of our industries.

At that time it was not seen as frivolous or silly to talk about limiting the amount of foreign ownership of certain industries that were key to Canadians. I was very pleased to see those moves in those days. I was too young at that time to really appreciate them. Certainly in recent years, as we see that school of thought slipping away, I am looking back with some regret that we have somehow lost that.

When I hear a debate like we heard today that we cannot make a move as minor and insignificant as trying to look after this one small aspect of our cultural and artistic industry, if we cannot make a move like Bill C-55 without worrying about being squashed like a grape by this steamroller to the south of us, we really have lost our ability to chart our own destiny as a country.

Bill C-55 is not a broad sweeping interference with the free market. For those hon. members who really advocate the free market and the free hand of the market, et cetera, this is not an interference of that ability for industries to conduct themselves. This is not state intervention in any way that will offend anyone. It is a very minor detail that recognizes that arts and culture are as much of an industry and as much of an engine for economic growth as any of the other smokestack industries or the high tech industries we are fond of promoting and encouraging.

The member for Kamloops spoke very well about industries like the film industry and how we would be crazy not to do all we can to cultivate and nurture that burgeoning new industry in B.C.

The film industry in Manitoba now is a $100 million a year industry. The member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul can testify to this. Two years ago it was $13 million a year. Last year it was $50 million and this year it is $100 million, with a new sound stage being built and new crews being trained to push that limit even further.

This is the kind of thing, if we really want to talk about growing the economic base in areas where we have real opportunity and real potential, the arts, culture and heritage, that we cannot ignore. We heard about jobs being bantered about here and possible job loss if we take the step of Bill C-55. What about jobs lost or lost opportunity if we do not act in this regard?

Community colleges in British Columbia have started 22 new apprenticeship programs in the film industry. That is brand new. That is a whole new growth area, not only new jobs but new training.

We always used to wonder what a gaffer does. At the end of movies when the credits roll we see best boy, gaffer, key grip and jobs like that. Those are all apprenticeable trades, legitimate career positions, as are the electricians, the carpenters, the set designers and the lighting guys. It is a huge growth area. B.C. is looking forward in that regard and is welcoming the jobs which go along with that.

What we have been hearing people talk about more than Bill C-55 is free trade. Our party is not crazy about free trade. We were cautious about going into liberalized trade agreements that may—

[An hon. member]

You were fearmongering.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

A member just said that we were fearmongering about free trade. In fact, our predictions came true. It is not fearmongering any more. It is like slanderous and slander when it is the truth.

In actual fact, our worst fears were realized. We watched half a million good jobs flow south of the border. We heard that great flushing sound Ross Perot used to talk about. Whoosh, the jobs went right past us. We were not wrong about that. We were absolutely right.

Fortunately we intervened recently on the MAI. Everybody in this room except for our party, this whole House of Commons was willing to walk blindly into the new multilateral agreement on investment. Thank goodness somebody did sound the alarm on that.

Now that the dust has settled on that liberalized trade agreement called the MAI, we know what the real motivation was. The people who were pushing the MAI said there is a surplus of democracy in the world today that is interfering with the free movement of capital. The global capitalists were worried about a surplus of democracy, meaning that people like us, those of us in this House are a nuisance and interfere with corporations doing exactly what they want to do when they want to do it.

That is exactly what we have heard today from the Reform Party. Reform members have been saying that this House does not have the right to make rules to look after our own well-being because the corporate sector in the United States will punish us. I am not prepared to accept that. As a fiercely proud Canadian nationalist, I will never accept that.

It is our duty to do all we can to take charge of our own destiny and to do what we think is right in this country, by majority vote. Not everybody will always agree all the time with the right course to take. In this example, Bill C-55, that is pretty clear. Four parties out of five, and 250 votes out of 301 say the right thing to do is to protect our cultural sovereignty, to protect our arts and culture community, our heritage industries.

The Reform Party is more interested in the Heritage Front than it is in the heritage industry. The only time I ever hear of heritage associated with the Reform Party is by some of its members who are leaders in the Heritage Front. It has nothing to do with arts and culture, does it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would suggest that clearly untrue and slanderous allegations are unparliamentary. I ask you to have the member withdraw those remarks.