Lost his last election, in 2011, with 25% of the vote.
Trade October 15th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that when the decision came down it was a win for Canada. We won a lot of this decision and the hon. member should be happy with that.
Before we sat down and before we put forward the Canadian position on this, we talked to the groups, the industry and the provinces to make sure the position being put forward by the Government of Canada was best reflective of their views. We will continue to do that.
Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague down the way says, nonsense. The fact is that we will not be giving any subsidies to American companies. That is just one of the facts.
At some point in time, as a government and as Canadians, we have to decide whether or not to take a stand. We decided as a government—the Minister for International Trade, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage—that the Americans had crossed the line and that we were not prepared to give away that part of the industry.
That is exactly what we did. That is what these amendments are doing today. They are trying to make sure that Canadians in the future, our children and our children's children, will be able to read about their heritage and their country from a Canadian perspective. They will be able to read things which are written by Canadians and they will be able to see the world through a Canadian lens.
Had we not acted, that would not have been the case. I thank all of those in the industry, members on our side of the House, and those in the opposition who understand the importance of this, for their hard work. We took a stand and Canadians will remember that in years to come.
Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, international trade is a very complex issue. I think the hon. member should go back to his researchers to ask them why they would give him such false information as to put forward in the House the suggestion that we would have to subsidize American companies. That is not the case. It is not even on the board. Most people who have been following this issue know that.
I want to tell the hon. member, because it is a very important point and I think it is an important point for Canadians to know, that what we are talking about here is the 20% of the market that we now control. American and other foreign companies have 80% of the shelf space. We are only talking about 20%.
Is it his position and his party's position that we should all of a sudden give up this 20%, that we should not stand up for Canadian periodicals and Canadians? That is certainly not the position on this side of the House.
The hon. member should know if he is sitting in this House as an elected Canadian member of parliament that it is the role of the Canadian government to stand up for Canada; not to mouth American interests, not to mouth American big business interests, but to stand up for Canadians and to allow Canadians the opportunity to learn more about themselves, to learn more about their culture.
We have a large country. We cover millions of square kilometres of space, with people from the far north to the west coast and to the east coast who want to know about each other, who want to be able to read magazines about life in these areas.
I want to make it clear that they are not afraid to read American magazines or foreign magazines, but they would like to know about these issues from a Canadian perspective. We are only talking about 20% of the market that we hold in that shelf space.
There is some point at which Canadians need to stand up to bullying tactics. That is what we did. We told our friends, and again I say our friends the Americans, that we were not prepared to let their invasion go any further. That is what the Minister of Canadian Heritage did and every Canadian should be proud of that.
Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I was so proud of the work done by the Minister for International Trade that his name might have slipped out of my mouth. It in no way was meant to go against the rules of the House. I would never do that.
The work done by them was work done on behalf of Canadians. It was certainly done under duress at a time when most of the opposition parties were onside with us, with the exception of the Reform Party. It constantly criticized us for not standing up for one sector of society and criticized us at another time when we were standing up for an important sector of our economy and standing up to the Americans.
Sometimes in international trade it is difficult to get a deal. Rules are complex and different interests and different parties are involved. These things take some time. Industries such as the steel industry in my riding, which is very important, have an interest in this.
I want to also take the time to praise the industries that did not jump on the bandwagon and take the American line like the Reform Party did. They put forward good arguments when discussing this matter with my minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage as well as our caucus members. Again I thank the Minister of Canadian Heritage for standing up for the steel industry in her area.
It is important to recognize that these amendments to the bill represent a new stage of certainty and security in the evolution of Canadian culture as expressed by the Canadian periodical sector. In the legislative void created we accepted and implemented the WTO decision. It is very important to remind members that when the WTO came down with its decision, Canada followed the rules. We came forward and did what the WTO did, as we do internationally and as we hope other countries do. We went further to make sure Canadian culture was protected.
Security in the future of Canadian stories told in these periodicals will continue to thrive through an investment policy which will foster Canadian content. Most important, there will be jobs for Canadians in the periodical sector. Canadians will be provided with the opportunity to read about themselves and to know about themselves and to appreciate more what their country is about.
We have achieved this end through discussion, through co-operation and through working together with our American friends. This is the way two countries so intertwined in trade should work. Rather than battle a country with which we share a common border and are close in many ways we should resolve these issues through discussion.
We pointed out that Canada has one of the most open markets in the world for foreign magazines. Canadians enjoy reading about themselves but they also enjoy reading about foreign lands and seeing these through a Canadian perspective.
We explained and we also listened. In the end we struck a deal that was not only consistent with our cultural policies, but for the first time in our bilateral relationship with the United States, it agreed to and has recognized that Canadian content is a legitimate Canadian trade objective. That is the first time our American friends have done this.
These achievements, however, did not come without a cost. In any negotiation there is some give and take. We had to provide something in exchange. That is how negotiations work.
We agreed to let foreign publishers have limited access to the Canadian advertising services market, but not enough to inflict damage on our ability to promote that market. It was enough to show that we were willing to give something in negotiation, but, most importantly, not enough to jeopardize Canadian culture as it is expressed in our magazines. However, it was enough to remove the threat of damaging trade action by the Americans.
Between January and last week no less than 10 meetings were held between Canadians and American groups working on this agreement. After all, we are each other's best customers. We find that if we can negotiate, if we can sit down, if we can show each other our differences, then we can move forward more quickly.
We have more than $1.5 billion in trade crossing the border every day. That is why we sought to resolve these issues through dialogue. A trade war would have been far more damaging.
We gave a little, maybe too much for some of our friends on the other side, maybe too little for others, but that is what happens in negotiations. There is give and take.
We should also remember that Canada and the United States have agreed, through dialogue, to other agreements, which were mentioned by the Reform Party, concerning issues of softwood lumber, issues of wheat and agricultural products. When all of these issues came forward we did not end up with a battle; we ended up again giving a little, taking a little, but we ended up with an agreement.
I do not think anybody who knew about the free trade agreement and the NAFTA which followed expected everything to be rosy. In fact, I do not think any trade agreement in the world could make absolutely certain that there would not be disagreements with neighbours. However, we find the best way to deal with these disagreements is through negotiation.
The desire to resolve these disputes through discussion is not only a matter of preference between friends, it is also the practical approach and the best way to deal with these issues. If the United States did retaliate against those industries that were the targets—steel, apparel, plastics and lumber—there would have been a chilling effect on our export markets and our export contacts in these areas. While we would have had the right to challenge the United States pursuant to the NAFTA, Canadian exports still would have suffered. The rules are there and we have to make sure that we understand those rules to put forward our argument and to protect the industries that we hold important in this country.
That is why the Government of Canada preferred a negotiated solution; not a solution at any price, or one that played one sector off against another, but a mutually satisfactory agreement and a balanced agreement.
It was the balanced agreement which was signed last week that led us to introduce these amendments. The amendments to this bill provide increased certainty and security for the Canadian magazine sector and, thus, an ongoing and strengthening venue for Canadians to communicate with each other and to learn more about their country.
We certainly thank the industry itself, which provided the government with a lot of the information and a lot of the resources it needed to put forward this argument. That is the best way to do it; to work through the industry, through those sectors that are concerned about these issues, with the co-operation of the provinces, with the co-operation of Canadians and the NGOs to put forward an argument. That is why we win these arguments. That is why we have moved ahead in trade. That is why our trade numbers keep growing. Even though we are a somewhat small country, when we are put against our larger neighbour to the south I think we do pretty well. If we go around the world and talk to other countries that deal with the Americans on trade issues, most of them look to Canada to see how we do it because we have been successful.
I want to say thanks again to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Canadian Heritage for their hard work.
Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, first I want to respond to the remarks of the hon. member from the Reform Party regarding this bill.
I am somewhat surprised that the Reform Party on the one hand keeps claiming we can direct U.S. policy on trade and that we should somehow be standing up for farmers. On the other hand, when it comes to our cultural industries and what is important to Canadians and identifying Canadian symbols, the Reform Party would have us just walk away and do whatever the Americans want us to do.
Before the hon. member leaves, I would like to say that in terms of his comments regarding the cultural industries in our committee report, we did not come out and claim that somehow in a new round we would be able to protect all of the cultural industries in Canada. Our recommendation stated that at the WTO there should be a way in which countries can come together to discuss culture and put forward some of the interests of Canadian culture. We feel the Canadian government and certainly the Minister of Canadian Heritage and her parliamentary secretary have done that very well with regard to Bill C-55.
We should take that issue further. At the next round of WTO negotiations in Seattle at the end of this year, we should come together with the different countries in the world that feel culture should be on the table and find a forum under which we can discuss those issues.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-55. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade thanks the Minister of Canadian Heritage, her parliamentary secretary and her department for all of the hard work they have put into this bill. We are very appreciative of our Minister Marchi and the Prime Minister who together with the Minister of Canadian Heritage stood up for Canadian interests.
Asbestos June 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that Liberal members on this side have approached the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade. They lobbied very hard on behalf of their province to make sure that a strong position was put forward at the WTO.
The March response was Quebec's response to the letter sent by the Minister for International Trade. In a sense, Quebec told the minister at that time that because it was a French situation it wanted to deal with it and that the Government of Canada does not provide a seat for the—
Asbestos June 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in January 1999 the minister of Quebec sent a letter to the Government of Canada requesting that. It was later said that the premier of Quebec wanted to write the Prime Minister on this issue to make it much more strongly and we have not yet received that letter.
The hon. member knows that the Government of Canada has consulted widely, not only with the industry and the stakeholders but with the Government of Quebec. We have asked for its advice and we are presenting its arguments today before the WTO.
Asbestos June 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the hon. member and his leader, the co-operation with the Government of Quebec, as said by its own minister, has been exemplary. He told the Minister for International Trade at a meeting of all the trade ministers that in fact the co-operation was very good.
I will tell the hon. member again, it is the position of the Government of Canada when it is a challenge of a provincial regulation, then the provinces are at the table. In this case it is a challenge of a French government regulation. In fact, it was the Government of Canada, not the Government of Quebec which first took this issue on on behalf of—
Asbestos June 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, as the trade critic, the hon. member should know that the Government of Canada invites provinces to the table when their specific provincial program is being challenged by another country. In this case it is the Government of France's program that is being challenged by Canada. Through that process the Government of Canada has spoken very closely with all the stakeholders including the Government of Quebec to get all the information it needs to present a very strong case.
Asbestos June 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the Minister for International Trade in fact has been waiting for such a letter and has not received one.
The hon. member should also know that this is a French regulation. As such the Government of Canada has taken time, has spoken with the industry in Quebec, has spoken with the Government of Quebec and has worked with all the stakeholders to make sure that the strongest possible position is being put forward at the WTO by this government.