Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your guidance. I did make an error in presenting the subamendment at this time. I will certainly continue to debate the amendments from the Senate.
We heard the heritage minister indicate that there may have been a victory on this bill, a rather shallow victory, if it is a victory over the trade war; win, lose or draw or wherever we are. Let us not forget that Bill C-55, with the amendments attached, is really about trade. As I have indicated all along, the bill really belongs to the Minister of International Trade and not to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
I would remind the government that with our current status with the United States, almost 85% of everything we produce heads south. Our economy is closely linked with the economy of the United States. I am sure our loonie would not be where it is if it had not for the vibrant economy of the United States.
I would just remind the House that it was Reform that stood up for Canadian jobs because we were concerned about a potential trade war. It was Reform that stood up for the steel workers of Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie. We are the ones in the Chamber who defended the jobs in the labour industry, the agricultural industry as well as the plastics industry in the country. We defended the jobs of the textile workers in Montreal.
We know, as Canadians, that we are different from our neighbours to the south. We speak differently. We have a Canadian accent. We say things in a Canadian manner. Our culture is very different. We are much more receptive to other cultures. We are a very diverse country. We are different from Americans, and Canadians know that. Legislation is not going to make us any more different than we already are. We know that we have a rich culture and that we will celebrate that.
At this time, I would like to state for the record that Canadians do read Canadian magazines and they prefer to buy magazines that are Canadian. Even though the publishing association said that 80% of magazines on the stands are foreign magazines, they also said that 50% of magazines purchased in Canada are foreign.
The latest numbers on readership, taking into account controlled circulation, magazines distributed via bulk delivery, including newspapers, show that only 4.9% of magazines read in Canada are bought off the stands, which is a pretty small number; 35.7% of magazines read are received by paid subscription; and 59.4% of magazines read are received by controlled circulation. In other words, 75% of all magazines read or received by controlled circulation and 94% of these are Canadian owned. Why are we so concerned that Canadians are not reading magazines produced in this country?
I would like the House to hear what other people are saying about this magazine bill.
As I said at the beginning, this bill has run a long time. We have probably been at this bill for over 12 months. It has certainly developed a life of its own.
I will quote a fairly recent article in the May 26 edition of the National Post by Jonathon Gatehouse. He states:
Less than a month after the bill was introduced, Gordon Griffin, the American Ambassador to Canada, warned a blue-chip business luncheon in Ottawa that the provocation would not go unnoticed south of the border, calling C-55 “faulty public policy” and spoke openly about a possible trade war.
As we have experienced, this potential trade war has created this amendment that we are dealing with today in the House. In fact, that same newspaper article states:
The Knives are out and as one senior Liberal told the National Post last week, many in cabinet blame Ms. Copps for almost dragging Canada into the worst trade war in memory with her ill-timed rhetoric.
“Keeping on message has been a constant problem”, said the source. “Every time Sheila would come forward and say something particularly strident, the U.S. would fluff out their feathers”.
I will quote another article in the May 26 edition of the Toronto Star written by Valerie Lawton. She states:
Split-run publishers who opt for that route, however would have to go through an investment review process run by Canadian Heritage.
Ultimate power to say yes or no to proposals would rest with the heritage minister.
The Globe and Mail of May 26, in an article by Heather Scofield and Shawn McCarthy, states:
Heritage Minister Sheila Copps and International Trade Minister Sergio Marchi—who have often been at odds in recent months over how far the government could go to meet U.S. demands—are expected to argue the deal does not sacrifice the domestic magazine industry even as it averts a trade war that would have slashed access to the U.S. market for key industrial products such as steel and textiles.
The article goes on to state:
The agreement provides significant less protection for the Canadian magazine than Ms. Copps originally had promised. The Heritage Minister will attempt to save face by announcing the government's plan to shift responsibility to her department for screening all foreign investment in Canadian cultural industries government sources say.
That did happen in the week following.
The National Post article of May 26, written by Giles Gherson, states:
But a senior magazine-industry representative bitterly complains: “I can't believe the ignominy of the complete and utter cave-in by the Canadian government. They've just capitulated”. This representative said that the Canadian content win by Ottawa is meaningless since few U.S. magazines will want more than 18% Canadian ads, making Canadian content a non-issue.
Only two weeks ago, Sheila Copps, the Heritage Minister, was adamant that this so-called de minimis exemption would be restricted to split-runs with no more than a single digit amount of Canadian advertising—in other words 9% ceiling.
As we know, that has ballooned to 18% over three years.
I will continue the quote:
In the end, the feisty combative Heritage Minister settled on an exemption large enough to drive a pick-up through. Crying sellout, the Canadian magazine industry is privately livid at the Chrétien government's backsliding.
On May 27 in the Toronto Star , in another article by Valerie Lawton, she states:
But plans for a subsidy package to help ease the new pressure on Canadian magazines still haven't been worked out. Copps said she didn't know how much money will be available.
We still do not know how much this deal will cost Canadian taxpayers.
The article goes on to state:
He predicted that even with subsidies—which the industry has long said it never wanted to be dependent on—some magazines will die.
We know that statistically even with the subsidization that is currently occurring, one-third of English published magazines are not viable and up to one-quarter of the French magazines are also not viable.
I continue to quote the article. It states:
Copps said repeatedly that Canada had won an important concession from the Americans—that for the first time the U.S. has recognized Canada's right to protect and promote Canadian content in magazines. But the US suggested it had done nothing of the kind. This issue has nothing to do with culture. It was simply a matter of ensuring competition, said a senior trade official. The issue is one of commerce... The key issue here has to be access to a market.
This essentially is what the amendment does to Bill C-55. It gives access. It is about trade. The Reform Party has always taken the position that Bill C-55 is really a trade bill and not a bill that should come from the Canadian heritage department.
In an editorial in the Ottawa Sun on May 27, it stated:
Poor Sheila Copps won't be allowed to lead the charge into a ludicrous and—