Lynn Myers

[Concentration Of Print Media In Canada, November 3rd, 1998]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a commission of inquiry to examine the concentration of print media in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the issue of the concentration of ownership in Canada's media. This is an issue that has become very important to many Canadians. Ownership concentration, in my opinion, needs to be examined.

Anyone who has read the newspaper, watched the news or listened to radio in the last year, knows that this is an issue of debate that has been around for a long time. This has recently taken on new dimensions. Canadians have started to ask themselves whether we should worry about this once more.

The fundamental question and the questions revolving around this matter are whether Canada's media ownership is in the hands of too few people. Furthermore, does the concentration of media ownership present a true dilemma relative to the amount of influence that these owners have on what is published or broadcast? If so, I would therefore recommend that the government study this issue further.

I am not necessarily asking for a commission of inquiry. Rather I am interested in what my colleagues in this House have to say about this matter. Let us take a look at these questions before going on any further.

Canada's media is comprised of many facets, including radio, television, print and electronic through the Internet. Each medium reaches a wide number of Canadians and is a large part of many of our lives. Few are the Canadians who do not read the newspaper, watch television or listen to radio every day.

On a daily basis the citizens of this country are bombarded by information about the goings on around Canada and around the world. But one has to ask whether they are receiving a balanced presentation of the news.

Taking a look more particularly at the concentration of ownership in Canada's newspapers, we realize how concrete this issue really is. Ownership of the newspapers of our nation has been a target of much discussion over many years but has become an even more intense debate recently.

First let us examine a few facts revolving around Canada's newspapers. The three biggest newspaper chains in Canada are in charge of 72% of all the circulation of daily papers. This in itself demonstrates concentration of ownership.

What is more impressive is that two out of these three chains are owned and run in essence by the same person. Hollinger Inc., through its owner Conrad Black, owns 27 of Canada's newspapers.

In July of 1997 Hollinger secured a large portion of Southam Inc., Canada's largest chain owning 34 papers. Now 58.6% of Southam is under the control of Hollinger and of Conrad Black.

Together these two companies control almost 60% of Canada's newspapers and approximately 42% of the country's circulation. They own all the daily newspapers in Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, as well as 14 out of British Columbia's 16 dailies. In addition, they control papers in every provincial capital except for Winnipeg, Toronto and Quebec City.

As I have demonstrated, Canada's print media is controlled in big part by one company, Hollinger Inc., and by one person.

Another very influential newspaper company in Canada is Torstar Corporation which owns 100% of the Toronto Star , the country's single largest newspaper in terms of circulation. This corporation is another example of a company securing quite a large portion of ownership and circulation in Canada's media.

Just last week Torstar Corporation announced plans to stage a hostile takeover of Sun Media Corporation. Together these two conglomerates would control a total of 26% of Canada's daily newspaper circulation.

Another area of concentration is cross ownership of newspapers, radio, television, news services and web sites. But the question remains on the issue of influence. We can easily say that the majority of Canada's newspapers are in the hands of a few people, but is it too concentrated? Are there too few people at the helm of Canada's media?

To really know if it is overconcentrated we must look at the integrity of the papers themselves. Are they presenting a balanced approach to the news? Are the facts being put out in an objective standpoint way? Do Canadians in all market areas have access to differing points of view?

Besides the danger that might exist in very few companies having too much influence on the papers, another danger might arise. While it is said that publishers might not directly control policy at each paper, certainly those in charge are conscious of what publishers like and expect.

Do they, for example, follow their own personal standards and guidelines or do they try to please the person who signs their paycheques? With the number of papers within one publisher's control the chances are fairly good that some papers' editors do not always work in a totally unbiased state of mind.

On the other hand the publisher of the Southam owned Victoria Times Columnist insists that he does not feel any pressure to go one way or another on issues. The mission for him, he says, is to get in touch with the community's agenda and not the publisher's.

It would not necessarily be that a newspaper would neglect or falsify information, but certainly they might put emphasis on certain facts more than others. Any editorials may present opinions following a publisher's philosophy or political point of view. As we can see, although a publisher might not be in complete control of what is printed, those who are in charge of content could be easily persuaded or inclined to undertake methods to make their publisher happy.

Let us inspect yet another aspect that adds to the ramifications of the debate. As it was officially announced earlier on this year, Hollinger Incorporated launched just a week ago the first edition of National Post . This new paper is competing against the Toronto Star , Canada's most read newspaper, and the Globe and Mail , the only other paper that claims to be national.

If the paper is to be successful it may take readers from the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star , particularly in the important Toronto market. If the National Post ends up taking many readers from the aforementioned papers, not only will they suffer but there will be greater concentration and obviously less competition.

The Government of Canada in the past has taken a closer look at media ownership. In 1970 Keith Davey and others studied media issues, one of which was the concentration of media ownership. The three biggest chains controlled 45% of daily circulation at that time in comparison to the 72% that the three largest chains now own. This study led to the creation of the Royal Commission on Newspapers 10 years later. This commission was formed after Southam closed its Winnipeg Tribune and after Thomson shut down the Ottawa Journal .

Tom Kent, commissioner of this organization in the 1980s had suggested restricting the number of papers that any one company could own. His recommendations were soundly rejected by the industry, an industry that has consistently rejected government intervention.

Our federal government to this day has never implemented any regulations in this matter and that in essence is the foundation of this private member's motion. I am asking other members and Canadians in general for their opinions on the issue.

Do we as Canadians need to worry about media concentration? Should we be implementing legislation to regulate ownership of the media or are the present mechanisms in place all that is in fact needed?

On a related note, the Canadian public has expressed concern with the matter of bank mergers which would give the so-called megabanks too much power and control. I would argue, as have others, that the issue of newspaper ownership is at least as important as the subject of bank mergers. Should we not then be examining the issue of media ownership in the same light?

As I have already mentioned, there exists at present no law restrictions in Canada on how many newspapers one company can own. Some have argued that we should be more concerned about media ownership since it is more important to democracy than any other industry. It plays a powerful role in shaping our nation's public opinion.

Recently major players in the newspaper industry expressed reason for concern over the increasing concentration of newspaper ownership. Paul Godfrey, chairman of Sun Media, last May was quoted as saying it was wrong for the newspaper industry to be in few hands.

John Honderich, publisher of the Toronto Star , made observations earlier this year when Southam bought six British Columbia newspapers from Thomson Corporation. He said:

I can't remember a time when so much has been dominated by one chain. What is enough? Is this level of circulation too much? Should it be allowed?

He went on to ask who should answer these questions and went on to suggest that Ottawa should intervene. As Mr. Honderich said, “I don't think it can be the industry itself or the people we appoint”.

I will end with that question. It is important at the very least to explore this potential problem. We might realize that the media are in no way influenced by ownership concentration. On the other hand we might find that they are and that information presented is not balanced.

In the very least it is our duty as Canadians and as members of the House of Commons to examine and discuss this matter. It is important that we do so in a manner consistent with the values, the institutions and traditions of all of us as Canadians.

Perhaps all we can do at this time is simply to monitor the situation. There may come a time when other action is required. I look forward to hearing what my colleagues in the House have to say on this important issue.

[Poverty, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. According to a recent study there is a growing gap between Canada's richest and Canada's poorest families. By 1996 Canada's richest families were making 314 times the average income of the poorest.

What does the minister suggest be done to rectify this situation?

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I begin by saying that I was somewhat astounded by the comments made by members opposite in the Bloc Quebecois. Their misinformation on this very important matter is disturbing. Perhaps they do not understand what is being proposed in Bill C-54, but I think that is probably not the case. I believe they are deliberately trying to misrepresent the facts.

I want to take this opportunity to set the record straight on this very important matter. Let us do so by reviewing the facts.

The province of Quebec was the first jurisdiction to adopt comprehensive privacy legislation for information held in and by the private sector.

In 1994 the province passed an act representing and respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector. This act grants individuals the right of access to personal information held by private sector businesses operating in Quebec and regulates the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. The legislation is overseen by the Commission on Access to Information which is responsible for conducting investigations and settling disputes.

I also want to point out that the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms which came into force in 1975 enshrines the right to privacy for residents of Quebec. Amendments to the civil code providing extensive rights of privacy were enacted in 1991.

Because it has legislation which is substantially similar to the proposed personal information protection and electronic documents act, Quebec in fact will be exempted from its application. That is important to note.

Like the Quebec legislation, the federal legislation will have two basic components: a set of fair information principles and a mechanism for overseeing the implementation of the law. The federal bill is based on the Canadian Standards Association code which, like the Quebec law, is based on the 1980 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development “Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data”.

Let us be clear here because it is important. First of all, Quebec will not lose any type of protection as a result of our legislation. Moreover, our legislation will not force Quebec to do anything or to not do anything. Finally, Bill C-54 will complement Quebec's legislation. To suggest otherwise is misleading, false and quite frankly, incorrect. It is important that Quebecers and all Canadians know this.

[Immigration, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General.

A recent report indicated that smugglers are bringing many illegal immigrants into Canada as part of organized criminal activity. This is very costly to the Canadian taxpayers. What exactly is being proposed to crack down on this problem?

[Military Missions Beyond Canadian Boundaries, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on October 1 of this year I asked a question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the export of water from Canada.

Earlier this year Nova Group, a Sault Ste. Marie firm, won a permit from the Ontario government allowing it to export 600 million litres of water a year from Lake Superior to certain Asian countries. Not long after, Nova Group saw its permit revoked amidst a national debate on the environmental and international aspects of allowing the export of our freshwater.

In July of this year, two months after the initial permit was given to Nova Group, the Ontario government passed new legislation that banned the bulk export of freshwater, which is a reason for Nova Group's licence having been taken away.

The problem lies in the fact that Nova Group is now approaching the Environmental Appeal Board fighting to reinstate its permit. The environmental minister has already stated that if the provinces agree Ottawa would get involved and do something about the situation. Furthermore, the foreign affairs minister has asked the United States to agree to refer the situation to the international joint committee responsible for boundary waters since the water in question is coming from Lake Superior which borders both countries.

The Ontario environmental minister, having realized the mistake made by giving Nova Group the permit, thinks that the federal government should get involved in this very important issue.

This past weekend the United States Great Lakes Commission, an American environmental group, joined in the efforts against Nova Group. It stated that if we begin letting one company export our freshwater it will turn a trickle into a flood. During the hearings for this case beginning on December 7 of this year, the Great Lakes commission will be officially demonstrating support for the opposition of selling this natural resource. According to the commission this single permit, if it is returned to the Nova Group, would inevitably have a significant impact on the future of North America's freshwater.

Our natural resources are very precious. We need to think of our children and of generations to come. We need to control this very precious resource which is a staple of life and is a very serious problem for all Canadians present and future. The issue of water exports needs to be examined and discussed at the federal government level.

Once again I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs what is his position on this matter.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate this very important issue. I do so on behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington.

I want to begin by pointing out an important element of the proposal for the Canada customs and revenue agency and that is that it is a framework for the participation of the provinces and the territories. By setting the right conditions for greater co-ordination of federal and provincial tax administration, the agency can and will serve both the national as well as the provincial interests.

The success of the Canada customs and revenue agency does not require the participation of every province and territory. In fact participation in the agency is fully voluntary. The agency is intended to provide a framework and a platform to work for the benefit of all the provinces, not to take over any provincial powers. The creation of a new agency will reduce overlap and duplication between federal and provincial revenue administration.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is only one taxpayer. Why not then a single administration to collect taxes? This approach will allow governments to reduce their administrative costs and at the same time provide savings in compliance costs to taxpayers. Only where provinces and territories agree that a sound business case can be made for a specific service to be supplied by the agencies will these arrangements in fact be made.

The province of Quebec has been consulted along with all other provinces since the beginning of this process. Quebec has told us that although it does not want the new agency to administer any of its programs, it is willing to stay informed about its progress.

The agency legislation in fact simply represents a framework for closer collaboration. There is no obligation on the part of Quebec or any other province to have the agency administer more programs on its behalf if it is a matter completely for each to decide on its own.

Even if Quebec chooses not to participate, Canadian businesses will still benefit by saving between $116 million and $193 million annually in compliance costs. In addition, governments would save between $37 million and $62 million in administrative costs. Any new programs that the agency will administer will be based on a business case analysis. This will apply to Quebec as it will to all other provinces.

At the present time Revenue Canada collects personal income taxes for nine provinces and corporate income taxes for seven. Revenue Canada administers provincial social benefit programs for British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and Nova Scotia. Revenue Canada also collects provincial sales tax, and alcohol and tobacco taxes at the border for a number of provinces. It also administers the national child benefit. There is ample precedent for this co-ordination and consolidation of services.

The proposed agency by its very structure should expand even further the level of co-operation and at the same time increase the provincial voice in tax administration.

Provinces and territories will be able to supply lists of nominees from the private sector for 11 of the 15 directors on the board of management which will direct the business planning of the agency. These directors will not, I repeat not, be on the board to represent the specific interests of their province, but rather to bring a provincial and regional sensitivity to the management of the board and the agency.

The powers of the agency will be broad enough to allow it to enter into service agreements with individual provinces, for example for the collection of a non-harmonized provincial tax. Until now Revenue Canada could only administer provincial taxes if they were harmonized with federal taxes, limiting the number of programs that could be administered by Revenue Canada. Under Bill C-43 the agency will be empowered to administer non-harmonized taxes such as the provincial sales tax which is not harmonized. There are still economies of scale under a single administration even if a tax is not harmonized.

The agency will enter into an agreement with a province to administer a tax, but all of these agreements will have to follow guidelines which will be established by federal and provincial finance ministers. These guidelines will ensure that any taxes collected by the agency on behalf of the provinces and the territories will first of all, be legally valid; second, not jeopardize the system of self-assessment; third, not involve double taxation; fourth, ensure fairness; and finally, be undertaken under mutually acceptable contractual arrangements.

The last criterion demonstrates an important aspect of these agreements. They are service contracts with the agency providing a service to a province or territory according to specific terms and conditions of a contract between the two parties. This means that the province or territory will retain full authority over the tax and will be accountable to the taxpayers for it.

The agency will have to strengthen its accountability to the provinces for the administration of programs on their behalf so that they in turn can be accountable to their own taxpayers. Once a year the commissioner of the agency will have to report to provincial and territorial ministers on the programs and services managed on their behalf and offer to meet with them also on an annual basis to obtain their feedback on the agency's performance on their programs and their services. This strengthening of the accountability and performance bonds between the agency and the provinces and the territories will ensure that programs and services remain innovative, responsive to clients and cost effective.

I also want to point out that a study of the Public Policy Forum estimates that Revenue Canada could administer current provincial taxes for about $97 million to $162 million less than is currently spent, an overall reduction of 6% of the current costs if all provinces participate. The agency is currently undertaking joint studies with some provinces to examine specific possibilities.

Savings to individuals, businesses and governments increase as more provinces and territories participate. So it is in the best interests of all Canadians to have as much provincial and territorial participation as possible.

Bill C-43 will make the Canada customs and revenue agency a reality. The agency will be structured and positioned to earn the support of the provinces and the territories.

I want to point out that all provinces and territories as well as the federal government have worked hard to put their financial houses in order. The Canada customs and revenue agency is an opportunity to reduce costly overlap and duplication between the orders of government even further. That is important to note and certainly something all Canadians want.

I urge this House to pass Bill C-43 as quickly as possible so that Canadians in all provinces can realize the tangible benefits of better and more cost effective tax, customs and trade administration services in Canada. I believe that is what Canadians want and I sincerely believe that is what Canadians deserve.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

Our public complaints commission is known internationally in terms of the kinds of work that it does. As the member points out, it provides a level playing field.

We are fortunate in this great country of ours to have these kinds of processes in place that benefit all of us and ultimately protect all of us in the best interests of truth and justice.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I happen to believe that we do have a fair process in place. I happen to believe that the truth will emerge through this process. It seems to me that over time we will see the facts come out.

When I was chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police many a time I had to bite my lip and swallow very hard as we initially saw the one side come forward. We had to patiently wait until we could get our side out and allow our facts to emerge.

Canadians will be able to decide and view very carefully all the facts as they see them. They will be able to judge and judge properly. The process is one that is intact. It is there for all Canadians and it is one that ultimately protects us in the best interests of this great country of ours.

I reject totally and outright the notion that somehow by funding these people we would have something more fair in place. The whole purpose of a public complaints commission is to allow ordinary people to come forward and tell their side of the story and to get their facts and information out and to be heard in an objective fashion. That seems to fall on deaf ears as far as the NDP opposition is concerned. It does not seem to understand that the public complaints commission is there for a very precise purpose. That precise purpose is to get at the truth. We will see precisely that happen.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough East.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate the issue surrounding APEC and the civilian oversight, and I do so on behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington.

Having served for 10 years on the Waterloo Regional Police Service and as chairman, I know firsthand about the importance of our police and what they represent for all Canadians. The police in Canada are highly respected. There is no question that in order to maintain that level of respect we must have the ability to address concerns about police conduct, especially where we feel we have not been treated fairly.

Civilian oversight bodies such as the RCMP Public Complaints Commission do precisely that. Civilian oversight is a time honoured principle in democratic societies. It provides needed objectivity and credibility to investigate police conduct.

Police officers work in difficult circumstances. The task of ensuring Canadians remain safe in their homes and on their streets can be very complicated. It is a task we believe police carry out with dignity and with fairness.

There are times when police must use the force necessary to apprehend criminals or to prevent tragedy. Canadians expect police to do exactly that. There are times however when the use of force is drawn into question. The ability to question any perceived wrongdoing makes up a fundamental component of our criminal justice system and indeed of our human rights as a nation.

The RCMP Public Complaints Commission is an independent agency which was established in 1986 to investigate complaints from the public about the conduct of RCMP members. At that time Canada was a forerunner in creating the agency which was hailed as a significant step forward in support of democratic rights as we know them. We have seen a range of review agencies emerge over the years from local police service boards to provincial complaint bodies. Civilian oversight mechanisms now exist in almost all jurisdictions in Canada. All of these organizations have provided the necessary checks and balances of independent civilian oversight and effective review. That is important to note.

I will take a moment to review the role of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. The PCC is an independent body and not part of the RCMP. It is an administrative tribunal created by parliament in 1986 to protect the public with an efficient independent mechanism with all needed powers to consider complaints against the RCMP. The PCC acts in the public interest both to protect human rights and to protect RCMP officers from groundless accusations of improper conduct. The legislation establishing the commission provides for a chair, a vice-chair and up to 27 other members from across Canada. The PCC has been in existence for over 10 years. Over that time it has become known nationally and internationally for its fairness and integrity.

I also want to review the mandate of the RCMP PCC. It is not a decision making body. It makes recommendations to the commissioner of the RCMP concerning complaints from members of the public. It makes recommendations for improvements to RCMP practices to the commissioner and the solicitor general, the minister responsible for the RCMP.

Each year the RCMP receives about 2,600 complaints from the public, most of which are resolved satisfactorily without input from that commission. Each year the PCC receives approximately 1,000 complaints from the public regarding the RCMP.

While other countries may have different structures for civilian oversight, most are built upon fundamental principles of fairness, equality, equity and independence. I am firmly convinced that civilian oversight can only be successful in an atmosphere of mutual respect, co-operation and understanding of each other's views and roles. The public complaints commission has moved successfully in that direction since its inception.

The competing demands of our society make it even more necessary for police, our communities and government to continually look at how we can do things better. Policing the police is a phrase we often hear to describe the need for monitoring police services and conduct. There is no question that we need that monitoring in order to maintain the high level of confidence that Canadians rightfully have in their police. One way to help us do that in law enforcement is through civilian oversight. It is an effective mechanism to help make our law enforcement system even better.

At this time I want to review the specific mandate of the PCC panel that is looking into APEC. The chair of the PCC established a public interest hearing on February 20, 1998 to look into: events that took place during or in connection with demonstrations during the APEC conference in Vancouver between November 23 and November 27, 1997; whether the conduct of RCMP members involved in the events was appropriate to the circumstances; and whether the conduct of RCMP members involved in the events was consistent with respect to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I also briefly want to review the provisions of funding to complainants before the panel looking into APEC.

The public complaints commission was created by parliament to act in the public interest in relation to complaints by the public against the RCMP. I want to note that the PCC hearing process is fair to all participants and is not a trial. The government does not need to ensure counsel are provided for complainants. The PCC will ensure that there is no abuse of cross-examination of witnesses and that all relevant issues will be brought before the panel and will be examined thoroughly. It will also enable the panel to address thoroughly and fairly all aspects of the hearing. In order to do this the government has provided the PCC with an additional $650,000 and in response to its request, that money is now flowing.

It is important to note that it has the authority to investigate complaints independently. Witnesses can be called for example, and reports and other documents can be subpoenaed. Once the examination is complete, a report is provided to the solicitor general and to the complainant.

Policing is everybody's business, everybody in Canada. Without effective community relations, police work is hindered. Crimes may not be reported and witnesses may not come forward.

Canada is a country envied by many around the world, and the Canadian government will continue to look after the interests of all Canadians.

It is very important that communities have confidence in their police forces. Police officers are accountable to the communities they serve and rightfully so. That is why it is essential that we respect the process of the review mechanisms currently in place. It is essential that there be an independent and an arm's length relationship between communities, police and governments.

I believe that we have that independence in the public complaints commission. I also believe it is incumbent on all of us to respect that commission's process. We do so in order to get to the truth and to all the facts as we know them. That is what I believe Canadians want. I also believe it ultimately will serve us well in order to get to the truth.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. However, he fails to recognize the importance of the legislation in Bill C-54 that will put us in the forefront in terms of what we are doing as a government for the protection of all Canadians. The bill will provide the kind of trust, confidence and reliability that Canadians not only deserve but need in this new age.

I listened with some interest to the member opposite talk about Quebec and what has happened in terms of its privacy laws. I point out to him that we as a government have taken a look at the kinds of things Quebec has in place. We have used to the required and necessary extent the kinds of processes in place in that great province. I point out for all Canadians that he is in error in his premise.

The bottom line for us as a government is that in terms of our moving into the 21st century, we are doing it with the kind of confidence and vision required and which all Canadians want. We will do so in keeping with the values and the institutions that define us as a nation.