Debates of May 27th, 1999

Publishing Industry

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we do not see culture as just another commodity to be traded.

We have a special position, which was recognized for the first time by the U.S. government. It is important for Canada and for all other countries in the world.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government may be proud of this agreement with the United States about American magazines, but the fact is that it puts magazines on the same footing as any other commercial good, as an adviser to President Clinton rightly pointed out.

By caving in before having exhausted all possible recourses, what signal did Canada send to the United States, just before the next round of WTO negotiations?

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

Mr. Speaker, following the ruling made by the World Trade Organization, the Americans had unrestricted access to the Canadian advertising market. Under this agreement, that access is now limited to 18%.

The Americans have recognized for the first time that if they want to exceed that percentage, publishers will have to offer a primarily Canadian content. This is a significant change on the part of our friends south of the border.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the federal government not realize that, from now on, the Americans will use the precedent set in the publishing industry to open the whole cultural sector to free trade?

Is the government not worried about that, and does it not realize that it opened the door to this?

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

Mr. Speaker, if we opened a door, it has to do with the fact that the Americans are now recognizing for the first time the legitimacy of demanding a mostly Canadian content, something they had refused to recognize until now.

In that sense, the agreement reached between our two countries is a victory for us, because we convinced the Americans to recognize the legitimacy of Canadian content in our cultural industries.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Twice in the last few minutes we have heard the phrase majority Canadian content. Yet we also read that American negotiators are talking about substantial Canadian content.

Which is the case? Is it majority Canadian content, the Canadian version, or is it substantial Canadian content, the American version? If it is not the American version, would he please rise and tell the Americans, through this place, that is not the case?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no disagreement. It is majority Canadian content as was explained yesterday in the draft regulations, which will flow from the legislation, that were made public with the announcement of the agreement.

I refer the hon. member to the draft regulations that were published wherein it is explicitly said that the net benefit will include, inter alia, undertakings by foreign investors that result in a majority of original editorial content for the Canadian market in each issue of each periodical title.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is something that should be made clearer to the Americans than it obviously has been already.

I want to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that this was the first time that Americans had recognized our right to protect our culture. Is it not also the case, or at least has the Prime Minister not claimed in the past when he signed NAFTA and the WTO that Canadians had a right to protect their own culture?

The Americans presumably recognized this in the NAFTA and the WTO, so why is the Prime Minister making this specious claim that there is something new about this, or was it not the case that cultural protection—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that the World Trade Organization ruling did not uphold the Canadian position. If it had been left to stand by itself there could have been no protection for Canadian content and Canadian culture at all.

By having this agreement we have a real victory. We are protecting Canadian culture. We are protecting Canadian content, which would not have been the case if the WTO ruling had stood by itself. We have also strengthened whatever there was in the NAFTA agreement as well. This is a victory for Canada and Canadians. This is a victory for Canadian culture.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on February 9 I specifically asked both the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister for International Trade whether Bill C-55 was an ironclad piece of legislation that could survive any possible U.S. challenge at the WTO and NAFTA. Based on their assurances we agreed to support this piece of legislation.

Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain why she would succumb to U.S. threats when she knows Canada could defend itself against U.S. retaliation?

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

Mr. Speaker, we did not succumb to U.S. threats. What we have said all along is that we were open to proposals from our neighbours to the south if our interests coincided.

Indeed we have had any number of meetings to that effect. The last time we met we agreed to some terms which will protect our magazine industry, ensure its future. At the same time we got our neighbours to the south to agree for the first time to the importance of a majority Canadian content. That is what we have obtained.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of Finance said that there was funding available in the budget to help the Canadian magazine industry.

Could the minister tell us where this money is coming from? Was it already earmarked for that purpose because the government knew well in advance that it would cave in to U.S. demands? Was this whole piece of legislation simply a bargaining tool?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know if he were to talk to anyone who does responsible budgeting, which he may not, in fact any government would make provisions for this kind of matter.

The Economy

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I expect the TD Bank will be off the finance minister's Christmas card list. Of course it probably already was after that little rival comment.

TD is now saying that real personal disposable incomes are 26% below the United States right now, 5% lower than they were a decade ago.

Will the minister admit that after six years in power it is pretty clear that his policies have failed Canadians?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite as anyone who has read the TD study would demonstrate.

The fact is that from 1990 to 1992 this country went through one of the deepest recessions we have ever seen, much deeper than the United States. In 1993 when we took office with a deficit rising, interest rates rising, unemployment rising, it is very clear that Canada suffered from severe trauma.

What has in fact happened since we have taken office is that those numbers have turned for the better. Our unemployment is down. Our interest rates are down. Our economic growth is up. The situation has turned around and most economists would recognize that.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just two days after we passed the medical marijuana motion and already we are getting answers like this.

The TD Bank says that the reason incomes are so low is that job creation is too slow. The reason that job creation is too slow is because taxes are far too high.

How many reports do we have to have? How many business leaders have to tell us that taxes are too high before the government will start to act to give Canadians a tax break?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as is evident again from reading the TD study, the problem arose out of the recession that I talked about from 1990 to 1992 and a whole series of policies that were put in place by the previous government which in fact led to a very poor 1990 to 1994.

Given the fact that the Reform Party is criticizing that period, why is it so eager to hop into bed with the Tory party which gave us those economic policies? Why the united alternative?

Publishing Industry

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to creating a dramatic rift in the area of cultural exemptions, the agreement signed this week between Canada and the United States testifies to the federal government's total lack of planning and threatens the Canadian publishing industry.

Does the government realize that, far from saving Canadian publishers, it has betrayed them thereby potentially costing them $300 million in losses annually? How does the government intend to compensate the publishers for these losses, which it has caused?

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

Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that an adjustment will be made when the agreement comes into effect. cabinet and the Prime Minister have given the Minister of Canadian Heritage the authority to discuss, with industry representatives, the terms of an offer of some kind to compensate for these measures they will have absorb.

These discussions began yesterday morning and should conclude very quickly so that everything may be submitted to cabinet soon.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the government realize that the agreement it signed with the Americans puts half the advertising revenues of magazines at risk? At stake is 50% of the market, or $300 million, which the Canadian publishers will no longer have.

Does the government intend to compensate all of this considerable loss or will it abandon Canadian publishers?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is totally false. The American advantage as the result of the WTO decision was its unlimited access to the Canadian advertising market. This access has been reduced to 18% after three years. The figure of $300 million given by my colleague opposite is totally false.

There will be an impact, we acknowledge this. We will attenuate this impact and the way we will do so will be negotiated and discussed with industry representatives. A report will be submitted to cabinet once the discussions have been concluded. The members opposite will know the—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's business sector has been promised major subsidy reduction in the next round of trade negotiations and Canadian trade officials are working hard to deliver. However, yesterday's offer of subsidies to the magazine industry is a contradiction to that position.

Has the trade minister not seriously compromised the work of his trade negotiators through his actions?