Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear some of the justification that members opposite seem to be trying to put forward to justify why they are actually voting against an industry that, by the member's own admission, generates $400 million in revenue. They trivialize that. They do not seem to think that is important.
As well, the industry employs over 7,000 people.
We have also heard the argument that somehow Bill C-55 is against freedom of speech.
I will deal with the first issue, the accusations and comments about closure, that somehow this government in a heavy-handed way is shutting down debate.
The previous speaker stated that there are 21 clauses in this bill and then went on to say that his critic had put forward 21 amendments which would basically cancel out each one of the clauses.
Does that sound like an attempt to be constructive? Does that sound like they are putting forward alternative suggestions? There are 21 clauses and 21 amendments which are contrary to the entire intent of the bill. It is clearly nothing more than an attempt by the Reform Party to filibuster, to try to stall instead of allowing for debate to take place.
I will give the House an example. This is a quote directly from the government House leader in talking about Reform: “Do they think this is serious debate or is it stalling?” He went on to say: “I think most Canadians would agree that 50 speeches and to still be on clause 1 constitutes stalling”.
Quite clearly they are not interested in getting into why the Canadian parliament is at the point where it is actually passing a law that would restrict the open flow of advertising. Why would we want to do that?
They throw up the threat that the United States is going to retaliate, as if we should just tuck our nationalistic tails between our legs and go home. In fact, they make the comment in a press clipping, saying that Liberals want Reform to roll over in its opposition to this bill. What in essence we are hearing from the opposition is that they want the Canadian government, and by extension the Canadian nation, to roll over to the Americans.
The member said one thing that is accurate. We have the longest undefended border in the world. It is a free border, with free crossings. We have a relationship in trade, to the tune of a billion dollars a day. We have a relationship in terms of tourism. How many Canadians own property in the United States? We have an excellent relationship with them. But are we just to turn around and say that we do not care that what they are doing is in our opinion illegal activity that is damaging an industry? Would we tolerate it for any other industry?
I would suggest that if the fear that is being promulgated by the Reform Party were to come true and the United States were to put a tariff or some kind of a sanction on steel products, clearly that would be against the North American Free Trade Agreement.
There are mechanisms, solutions and ways of dealing with the situation. They cannot simply violate that agreement. This bill does not violate the NAFTA. I do not know how many times we have to say it.
It is somewhat disturbing to me to hear the false impressions that are put forward in question period and in debate. They are impressions that when researched are simply not backed up by the facts.
I can give an example. If a foreign publication is operating in this country for over one year it will not be impacted by the bill. Canadian advertisers are not impacted by the bill. A case in point would be Reader's Digest , which is currently about 75% Canadian owned. There is no negative impact on Reader's Digest . Time Magazine is grandfathered by the bill.