Debates of May 31st, 1999

Government Grants

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Saint-Maurice are very happy that the member for Saint-Maurice is doing his job. The member for Saint-Maurice has done exactly the same thing as members of the Reform Party have done with the program in their own ridings. He should ask his own members about it.

Publishing Industry

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, in reply to a question, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said in this House that the Americans had made a written commitment not to react to her subsidy program for Canadian publishers who, as we know, are the big losers in the agreement reached regarding Bill C-55.

My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. How could she make such a statement, considering that a spokesperson from the Canadian Department for International Trade stressed that the promise made by the Americans applies only to Bill C-55, and not to the future subsidy program for Canadian publishers?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement signed by the Americans was part of the WTO agreement signed ten years ago.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a rather obscure reply.

It is clear to everyone that the minister got herself into trouble once again. Contrary to what the minister claimed here on Friday, the Americans did not make any commitment regarding the subsidy program. In the WTO context, there must not be subsidy programs that benefit publishers from one area.

Did the Minister of Canadian Heritage not betray Canadian publishers not once, but twice, by giving the Americans half of the advertising market, in addition to having to share with them the program that she claims to be setting up to help Canadian publishers?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims there are no WTO rules on subsidy when in fact there is a whole chapter in the WTO documents that were signed by the Americans ten years ago.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage continues to say that the agreement with the United States is an excellent cultural agreement, which gives the Americans only 18% of the Canadian advertising market.

But we know that 18% of the space in American magazines represents 50% of the market.

By allowing this breach with respect to culture, is Canada not in fact distancing itself from the general position of a number of countries, and of Quebec, which are calling for a broader cultural exemption clause during the next WTO negotiations?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the cultural policy adopted by the United States following acceptance of Bill C-55 is an admission for the first time in that country's history that we do in fact have the right to treat culture differently.

This must be part of an overall strategy such as we are now implementing with France and other countries, which also think that culture should be accorded special treatment.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, speechifying aside, what credibility will Canada have in Seattle in defending the idea of a general cultural exemption clause, such as Quebec is calling for, when in reality it has just negotiated an important breach in the publishing industry with the United States?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has it wrong.

Under WTO rulings, there was no protection for Canadian magazines. Now, with Bill C-55, which I hope will soon be passed in the House, 82% of the Canadian magazine market will be protected.

Why? For one thing, because for the first time in their history, the Americans have agreed that culture is not the same as other sectors. It is this admission that will set the stage for a good discussion in Seattle at the WTO.

The Environment

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

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

A generation from now Canadians will tell the story of this day in parliament as a time when we had the opportunity to reverse years of wrong-headed thinking on the environment corrupted by industrial self-interest, et cetera.

Will the Prime Minister be the villain or the hero in this story today? Will he make this day a day of new beginnings for the environment, or will it be the same old story? Will the Prime Minister commit his party and his caucus to the idea of a total phase-out of persistent toxins and reject the amendments that have been brought forward that reject the work of the committee which called for phase-out?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, today is the first day of environment week and the government is very proud of the activities that it will be engaged in to encourage every Canadian across the country to consider how they can contribute to a cleaner environment.

The government, through our renewed CEPA legislation, will be able to act very proactively to assure Canadians cleaner air and cleaner water, something that is very important to our environment and human health.

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

Mr. Speaker, all the more shameful that this should happen on the first day of environment week.

I plead with the Prime Minister. The Minister of the Environment has broken every promise the Prime Minister ever made in the red book with respect to the phase-out of persistent toxins. It is up to the Prime Minister to save the day, not just for himself or the government but for future generations, and reinstate the idea of total phase-out of persistent toxins. Will he do that?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the new Canadian environmental protection legislation is extremely important. It will compel the federal government to analyze 23,000 substances now in use across our country.

The principle of pollution prevention is a very important key to this legislation. For those substances most toxic, the principle of virtual elimination will prevail.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's way of celebrating environment week is by invoking time allocation on report stage of amendments for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

This is a government that has very few MPs advocating sound environmental policies, and when they do they are band from taking action. The member for Lac-Saint-Louis, an advocate for strong environmental policies, was denied the right to vote during the committee review of the CEPA by his own government colleagues.

My question is for the Minister of Environment. When can Canadians expect her to end her policy of political doublespeak and demonstrate real leadership on the environmental agenda?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we are having this important debate on environmental protection legislation in the House. Canadians have been waiting for over a year of debate in the House to see renewed environmental protection legislation.

The legislation that we will be voting on tonight represents legislation that is a significant improvement over what we have today.

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

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister.

In the words of the Commissioner for the Environment, the government's lack of concern for the environment means “Canadians are paying the price in terms of our health and our legacy to future generations”.

What is missing is real leadership and real management. The government has had three environment ministers and six years to pass an environmental bill and Canadians have nothing to show for it.

When will the Prime Minister recognize that when it comes to the environment and human health this is one case where a below par record on the green is not acceptable?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is what we are doing. There will be no more talking. We will be voting today on a piece of legislation that has been negotiated with the provinces and debated in committee. It contains 240 amendments.

For those who have said that we have not spent time studying this problem means that they were not in the committees when it was needed.

Transitional Jobs Fund

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

Mr. Speaker, the transitional jobs fund has been quite a windfall for the Liberals.

During the last election it was used to get campaign donations for the Liberal Party. It then allowed the Prime Minister to give megabucks to his former business partner, a self-confessed embezzler of $1 million. Now we have a Liberal crony, representing the Prime Minister at official functions, who has access to the fund. He can now get even more dollars for projects in the Prime Minister's riding.

Will the Prime Minister explain just how this represents doing a good job in his riding?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member stated that a grant was given to a former business associate of mine and it is not true.

There was absolutely not a dollar given to any of my former businesses. The member should withdraw that because it is not true.

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

Mr. Speaker, is it not interesting that the Prime Minister zeros in on a small point and neglects to mention that this individual bought his money losing hotel and that the Prime Minister's numbered company has its registered office at this business partner's hotel? That is a small point the Prime Minister forgot to mention.

I ask the Prime Minister to explain to the Canadian people, who ante up the money that the Prime Minister is spreading around in such an unusual fashion, how this is justified.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of Saint-Maurice is entitled to the same programs that benefit the member for Dauphin—Swan River, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, the member for Nanaimo—Alberni, the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley, and the member for Okanagan—Shuswap.

The member keeps making affirmations that are not factual, but I know she does not have the decency of a normal member of parliament to admit when she is wrong.

Publishing Industry

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week a senior American official stated that the United States could go to the WTO if American publishers were denied access to the Canadian subsidy program. This was confirmed on Friday by a spokesperson for the Department of International Trade.

Does the Minister of International Trade confirm that a subsidy program reserved exclusively for Canadian publishers could infringe upon Canada's international commitments under what is called the national treatment principle?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we have always said that Bill C-55 was founded on the services level where we do not have the clause for national treatment to impose on services as opposed to goods.

Also there is a great deal of difference between countries around the world offering assistance or subsidies to domestic industries as long as those products are not for export.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have no commitment from the American government on the future subsidy program. We know such a program would be likely to infringe upon our international commitments regardless of what the minister says.

Is the cultural agreement of the century, of which the Minister of Canadian Heritage is so proud, not rather the first serious breach in the position of general cultural exemption which the government has always defended in international trade negotiations?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said moments ago that there was no cultural exemption at the WTO. That is why we were taken to the panel in the first place.

There was an abdication of rules and that is precisely what the Minister of Canadian Heritage was saying. We got an historic agreement, one that caps their advertising from 100% to 18%, one that for the first time gives us content, and one that encourages additional investment in the publishing industry in Canada. I think by any measure that is a pretty good deal.