Caroline St-Hilaire

[Gratien Gélinas, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today Quebec lost a great artist, with the death from Alzheimer's disease of Gratien Gélinas, at the age of 89. With his passing, Quebec has lost a great pioneer of Quebec theater.

The Bloc Quebecois wishes to extend its most sincere sympathies to Huguette Oligny, and the rest of his family.

This man of great generosity, and an even greater sense of humour, earned a deserved reputation as a master of his craft. He was the first to gain full recognition for Quebec theatre by creating truly Quebecois characters speaking Quebec French.

Many Quebec artists owe their careers to him to this day. His critical view of society was an integral part of all of his work. His characters, Fridolin, Ti-Coq and the like, have left an indelible mark on the history of Quebec.

Yesterday, he made us laugh. Today, his passing makes us weep. We shall never forget him.

Thank you, Mr. Gélinas.

[Quebec's Culture, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of amusing to see how the minister always gets off the subject.

Does the minister not see a serious discrepancy between the secondary role that it attributes to Quebec's culture and the fact that it is so thriving that direct contact between Quebeckers and the world is fully justified?

[Quebec's Culture, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's culture is thriving all over the world, thanks to performers such as Céline Dion, Luc Plamondon, the Cirque du Soleil and many others. It is this culture, which belongs to one of the country's founding peoples, that the minister calls a regional component.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not realize that, far from being a mere regional component, the Quebec culture is first and foremost a national culture that thrives at the international level?

[Competition Act, March 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998 (negative option marketing).

This bill is aimed at prohibiting negative option marketing, which means billing consumers for products or services without their express consent.

In fact, this bill proposes to amend the Competition Act to prohibit such marketing practices by banks, trust companies, credit unions as well as telecommunications and broadcasting companies.

Should this bill be adopted, anyone who commits an offence under the act would be subject to a fine of up to a maximum of $100,000. The director of the Competition Bureau would be required to submit an annual report on this issue. Moreover, the governor in council may, by regulation, exempt any service that needs to be exempted to remain competitive, for example, French language broadcasting services.

I want to emphasize the fact that Bill C-393 is the member for Sarnia—Lambton's third attempt to prohibit negative option billing by cable companies. However, Bill C-393 differs from the two previous attempts in that it goes beyond cable companies.

I would also like to give a brief overview of the history surrounding the introduction of Bill C-393.

In 1994, the CRTC authorized six new English language and two new French language broadcasting services. In 1995, cable companies in English Canada withdrew certain broadcasting services from the basic service and created an enlarged package consisting of the services previously included with the basic service and the new services they were offering, which had been authorized by the CRTC.

Consumers reacted strongly to this disruption of their package. Their reaction was described as a revolt at the time. They did not appreciate the changes, nor did they appreciate the fact that they had to pay more for services they already had and that they had to pay for new services they did not want.

They also did not appreciate having to make known their wish not to subscribe to this new service, or find themselves subscribing by default.

In 1996, the member for Sarnia—Lambton introduced Bill C-216, the purpose of which was to amend the Broadcasting Act so as to prohibit negative option billing in the broadcasting sector.

I would remind members that the Bloc Quebecois was in agreement with the bill in principle, but that we were still opposed for the following three reasons.

First, Bill C-216 represented interference in commercial relations between businesses and consumers, a field of provincial jurisdiction.

Second, the bill was impossible to enforce, there being no technology for providing television on demand. In addition, Bill C-216 would have required the explicit consent of all subscribers for a new channel to be broadcast, which, to all intents and purposes, would have prevented new channels from starting up.

Third, the bill had a particularly unfortunate effect in Quebec, where negative option billing is needed to ensure the widest possible distribution of a broadcasting service, failing which the service would be too expensive or would never get off the ground.

For the record, Bill C-216 died on the Order Paper when the 1997 general election was called.

When a new parliament reconvened, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton tried again and introduced Bill C-288 on November 25, 1997. Its goal was similar to that of Bill C-216, and its content was almost identical. Unfortunately for him, the bill was not a votable item.

And now we have Bill C-393, which was introduced on April 23, 1998, and is before the House. It also deals with negative option marketing. But, as I said before, it is different from the two previous bills in that it deals with much more than cable television.

The Bloc Quebecois supports of the hon. member's proposal in theory. Let me remind the House that the Quebec government has passed a law banning negative option billing in Quebec.

But the Bloc Quebecois will oppose Bill C-393 for the three following reasons.

First of all, the bill encroaches on Quebec jurisdiction in matters of trade and contracts. As a matter of fact, the Constitution provides that matters of contract, local trade and consumer protection are under provincial jurisdiction.

The second reason we will vote against this bill is that the CRTC already has the authority to ban negative option billing, if it thinks it is in the public interest to use its authority to do so.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill because it will help to reduce the authority of the CRTC and give the Competition Bureau powers that could undermine Canadian broadcasting policy, reduce consumer choice, increase rates and put an end to the development of French broadcasting services throughout Quebec and Canada.

I remind the House that consumers in Quebec made their position about Bill C-216 known to the Senate committee.

In fact, I firmly believe that more than ever French speaking viewers need the protection the CRTC can give them. Members have to understand that Bill C-393 could prohibit every other marketing method except pay per view television and could particularly involve such limited distribution that no new French language service would ever get off the ground.

It could deprive us of any new French channel. But even worse, as my hon. colleague from Mercier put it, the French language media must be allowed to live, not just to merely survive.

For all these good reasons, we will vote against this bill. Still, I want to commend the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for his perseverance, and he can be assured that the Bloc Quebecois will also persevere in its opposition to his bill.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, March 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, you will see the link very soon. I am getting there.

The federal government wants to become a leader in the promotion of cultural diversity in the world. In order to establish its own credibility, as Mrs. Bissonnette pointed out, it must officially recognize the Quebec culture and give it the necessary means to thrive all over the world. The fact is that the Quebec culture already manages to do that, in spite of all the trip ups of the federal government.

Again, I stress the importance of continuing the fight at the international level to promote cultural diversity. The work has not even begun yet. The next round of international negotiations is to start in November.

Yet, neither in the budget nor in the government's statements did I hear about the urgent need to act or did I see the budgeting of any major initiative to promote cultural diversity and to make sure that the respect of such diversity will become a precondition in the millennium negotiations that will begin in November.

I will conclude with a statement made in Paris by Agnès Maltais, the Quebec Minister of Culture and Communications, on March 10:

In a recent book, a French philosopher wrote that, in the context of globalization, it is in the interest of every country to listen to the nations that have always had to live with the profound and disturbing feeling of their own precariousness. Indeed, there is now a risk of overall levelling throughout the world.

Therefore, all peoples will ultimately feel what francophones in America have been feeling for so long. This is what led Alain Finkielkraut to use this eloquent line: We are all Quebeckers.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, March 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the members opposite that I have been talking about Bill C-55 for a while. I am providing facts to permit an understanding of the government's attitude.

On July 3, 1998, Michel C. Auger of the Journal de Montréal , not known as a sovereignist, commented in these terms on Ottawa's attitude to Quebec in the meeting organized last summer by the federal government, and I quote:

There was nothing to prevent Quebec from having the status at this conference of participating government similar to the arrangement at the francophone community summits.

In fact, Canada's position would be strengthened by the presence of Quebec, if only to show pointedly that Canada is not afraid of cultural diversity internally or externally.

However, as usual in Ottawa, they are incapable of seeing beyond the end of the flag. By appearing just slightly more open, the Minister of Canadian Heritage would have struck a vigorous blow for federalism. Because, if there is one thing at the heart of the sovereignist project, it is the right to cultural diversity.

So when globalization questions a number of the classic arguments in favour of sovereignty, there is one argument that takes on added importance and that is the right to defend one's culture and one's right to difference internationally.

I would, in this same vein, like to quote Bernard Descôteaux, the new head of the Devoir , who said this morning, and I quote:

But the presence of Quebec at meetings where cultural diversity is addressed should be a given. This is an issue that has Quebec truly concerned and rightly so. It has some viewpoints to offer and an experience to share in what is constitutionally a provincial area of jurisdiction.

This speaks volumes. Quebec and Canada have reached agreements on crucial issues like immigration, manpower, housing, and, just yesterday, the justice minister recognized Quebec's uniqueness in the way it deals with young offenders. Why is the federal government so intent in ignoring Quebec's culture?

Yet, Quebec's demands in the areas of culture and communications date further back that its demands about manpower and were made by every Quebec government.

In 1996, Daniel Johnson stated that Quebec should make its own decisions regarding culture. This statement was reiterated by Jean-Jacques Bertrand three years later. In 1971, Robert Bourassa asked for a reallocation of powers in the area of culture. In 1991, the Allaire Report released by the Quebec Liberal Party recommended that culture, communications and language should be exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Once again, I remind my colleagues opposite that I am only quoting from federalists.

In 1991, the Bélanger-Campeau report asked that Quebec be given, and I quote:

—exclusive jurisdiction and responsibility over its social, economic and cultural development and in the area of language.

By refusing to recognize Quebec's culture, by passing it off as a mere regional culture within the Canada mosaic, by light-heartedly mixing the cultural policy with propaganda, the heritage minister and the federal government are giving sovereignists a winning condition.

By stating that only independent nations have the right to attend international events like the one that was held in France, the Prime Minister is providing sovereignists with another winning condition.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, March 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today at third reading of Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.

The purpose of this bill is to restrict access to Canada's advertising market to Canadian magazines. The bill would prevent access to the Canadian advertising market by foreign publishers.

It is important to point out, however, that this is not in any way an attempt to prohibit the sale of foreign magazines in Canada. Through Bill C-55, the Canadian government is seeking to protect a cultural sector, in this case, magazines.

The Tassé commission on magazines and Heritage Canada studies have shown that the arrival of split run magazines on the Canadian market would substantially reduce the advertising revenues of Canadian magazines and thus imperil this cultural sector.

The impact on the Quebec market of allowing foreign magazines to supply advertising services would not be as great. The behaviour of Quebeckers in this sector is similar to their behaviour when it comes to television, which is to show a preference for what Quebec produces.

It is true, however, that certain major magazines in Quebec are produced by corporations with large interests in the anglophone sector and that francophone magazines could therefore be hurt indirectly by any weakening of the anglophone market.

The Americans have reacted to the federal government's announcement that it intends to introduce a bill to limit the advertising market to Canadian publishers only by announcing their intention to retaliate with $1 billion worth of measures against the textile, steel and plastics industries, among others. This is of considerable concern to the companies in question.

It must be remembered that total advertising sales of Canadian magazines for 1994-95 were $521 million, of which $385 million was for English language periodicals and $94 million for French language periodicals.

So the Americans are greatly overestimating their potential losses if the measure proposed today were found to be illegal by the WTO and were maintained by Canada, or if it were to become a cultural protection measure under NAFTA, which would entitle the United States to impose compensatory measures if Canada decided to maintain it after such a decision.

Since some of our industries do fear U.S. reprisals, it would be worthwhile determining exactly what mechanisms govern the international trading rules. This is all the more important because there are new developments in this area daily.

At the present time, a trade dispute is going on between the Americans and the European Union in connection with bananas. What is pitting the one against the other involves aspects which might cast some light for us on this periodicals issue.

The U.S. laid a complaint before the World Trade Organization claiming that the European Union was giving its former colonies a preferential tariff in the banana market, contrary to the WTO agreements. The WTO decided for the U.S. in this matter, so the European Union re-examined its measures in order to bring them into line with the international trade rules.

The United States reaction to implementation of the European measure was to impose reprisals against Europe under section 301 of the Trade Act, which allows the Americans to impose trade sanctions on behalf of companies whose business has suffered a negative impact from any such measure.

The European Community is appealing the very existence of this section 301 before the WTO and, according to reports, Canada will be taking the side of Europe before the international tribunal. It will, therefore, be highly informative to see how the WTO interprets section 301 of the American Trade Act. It will also be interesting to see how the WTO dispute settlement panel will rule on the dispute over bananas between the United States and Europe.

Canada too passed a measure, Bill C-103, to protect its periodical sector, and the WTO considered it illegal. Canada complied with the decision of the international panel by withdrawing the legislation. Bill C-55 is, in the opinion of government experts, legislation that will protect this sector and comply with international trade rules.

Obviously, everything must be done to avoid trade wars that benefit no one. The Bloc congratulates the Minister of Canadian Heritage's initiative in proposing this amendment, which provides that the bill will come into force under an order in council.

This legislative provision demonstrates the good faith of the federal government in its negotiations with its American colleagues, and the Bloc Quebecois strongly hopes that American trade representatives seize the olive branch tendered.

Basically, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill because it is part of the legislative and regulatory framework necessary to protect cultural diversity. Although the measure involves trade, its effect is to protect a cultural sector, that of magazines.

In its statement in support of the bill, the Association of Canadian Broadcasters expressed very clearly its concern that, if Canada were to lose the battle on this issue, of little financial consequence to the Americans, the defeat would mean the beginning of the end of Canadian and Quebec measures to promote culture. It would be the first of a series of measures that would bring the Americans to use their human and financial resources to dismantle Canadian rules on content, on property and on direct and indirect support by the state to the cultural sector. These rules are deemed by the Americans to be harmful to their entertainment industry.

Many observers believe that if Americans are targeting the Canadian magazine sector, it is because their real objective is a different one. This is very obvious. They are acting in this fashion primarily to alleviate the concerns of their voters, who are worried about their very unfavourable trade balance. Many Americans also think that the United States is the loser in the free trade agreement signed first with Canada and then with Mexico.

Moreover, let us not forget that the American entertainment industry has never accepted the cultural exemption included in the free trade agreement and then in NAFTA.

Considering that audiovisual exports rank second in the United States, and that Hollywood producers are major contributors to the election fund of the Democratic Party, it is easy to see why American trade policy officials are condemning Canadian cultural policies so strongly.

Americans may also be targeting the upcoming negotiations of the World Trade Organization, which are scheduled to begin in November, in Seattle. They want France in particular to understand that there is no question of another stunt like the one it almost pulled off during negotiation of the WTO services accord when, because of its insistence that there be a clause in the accord to exclude audiovisual products, negotiations ended without culture being included.

Furthermore, Charlene Barshevsky, the U.S. trade secretary, told Congress in January that the United States' goal with respect to international trade with Canada is access for American magazines to the Canadian advertising market and to other entertainment media or industries on the Canadian market.

The Americans want to see the entertainment sector included in the WTO millennium accords negotiated next fall.

Bill C-55 allows them to get their message across to the world.

However, they already occupy a large part of the world's culture and communications sector. The following is taken from the report of the cultural industries sectoral advisory group on international trade:

In fact, foreign competition dominates the Canadian cultural market. Foreign businesses and products account for 45% of book sales in Canada; 81% of English language consumer magazines on newsstands and over 63% of magazine circulation revenue;

It goes on:

—79% of the retail sales of tapes, CDs, concerts, merchandise and sheet music; 85% of the revenues from film distribution in Canada;

We are talking about $165 million. I continue:

—between 94% and 97% of screen time in Canadian theatres; in fact, it is here that the situation is worst, for Hollywood studios have always treated Canada as though it were part of the American market.

Some people like the former Minister for International Trade have claimed that, in view of a major expansion in cultural exports from Canada, protectionism is no longer in order and we should go ahead and open our borders and review our cultural policies.

But, as the working group on cultural industries of the foreign affairs department has remarked, and rightly so:

If a culture is to prosper, it needs a distribution network and an investment infrastructure. It should also provide a stimulating environment for creators and artists.

Robert Pilon, the vice-president for public affairs of the Association québécoise du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, put it more simply at the meeting held in Montreal a few days ago on the Canadian cultural policy “In any economics 101 course, you learn that, before you can export, you have to be able to produce”.

It is this creative capacity that needs to be protected and nurtured in Quebec and in Canada. That does not mean we should refrain from making major investments in the means that the cultural industries in Quebec and Canada need to get a larger share of world markets.

But if we give in now to American pressures, we run the risk of becoming more vulnerable, with the direct consequence that all industries in Quebec and Canada, cultural or otherwise, will be more fragile. We would be left to wonder what the next target would be.

Where culture and communications are concerned, Quebec and Canada hold similar views. Both states are of the opinion that every effort must be made to ensure total freedom for their cultural policies.

It is a pity, however, that in Canada imposing a Canadian identity and culture takes precedence over defending the cultural interests of Quebec and of Canada. Thus the federal government boasts about its lead role in promoting the concept of cultural diversity in the world, yet is unable to recognize the culture of Quebec and to give it pride of place beside that of Canada, both domestically and in other countries.

Instead of the Canadian government bringing all of its human and financial resources to bear on the importance of including a cultural exemption clause in upcoming international trade agreements, thus acknowledging Quebec, which shares its views on this, as a valuable ally in this battle which is far from over, it chose not to allow it to take part in last June's meeting of ministers of culture in Ottawa.

The following is what Lise Bissonnette, former editorial writer for Le Devoir , had to say on July 3, 1998 about the attitude of the Minister of Heritage:

To reduce Quebec to cultural silence while pretending, in empty resolutions in the House of Commons, and in the opportunistic Calgary declaration, that its “culture” lends it a unique character, is to be afraid of one's own shadow—

Allocating special status to Quebec would not even have created a precedent, because it has been acknowledged as a “participating government” for some fifteen years within international francophone organizations, with the agreement of Canada.

It is understandable that France would decline to be represented in Ottawa, when Iceland was given the recognition denied to Quebec. There are limits to how ridiculous things can be allowed to get. If the international network of states is to take concrete form, and move beyond mere empty words, the concept of cultures must be based on reality, not on unrealities such as these.

The credibility of the Canadian government is weakened by its irrational fear of Quebec, and major changes in strategy are called for, if it is to have the credibility to play a lead role.

Instead of changing its attitude and recognizing Quebec culture and its representative, however, the federal government has gone still further this week along the path of ridicule, by refusing to take part in a working session organized by Paris—

[Cultural Diversity, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when speaking of areas of jurisdiction, in my opinion culture is a provincial jurisdiction.

With the efforts being expended by the federal government to restrict the presence of Quebec on the international scene to the strict minimum, how can the Minister of Canadian Heritage make any claim to defend the distinct cultural nature of Quebec better than a sovereign Quebec would?

[Cultural Diversity, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this week the attitude taken by the Minister of Canadian Heritage concerning Quebec's presence at the meeting on cultural diversity sent a clear message to Quebeckers on how she views Quebec's international role.

Has the Minister of Canadian Heritage not demonstrated very clearly that, if Quebeckers are to take what they consider to be their legitimate place internationally, they have no choice but to become a sovereign country, or in other words to assume sole responsibility for their relations with other countries in the world?

[Luc Plamondon, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Luc Plamondon is arguably the most prolific lyricist in the French speaking world. He has written more than 500 hit songs, and has had a significant impact on the careers of a number of singing stars, among them Céline Dion, Diane Dufresne, Ginette Reno, Julien Clerc, and Fabienne Thibault.

His first major international success was the rock opera Starmania in 1979. Twenty years later, his prolific talent is being showcased in the hit show Notre-Dame de Paris , a modern-day adaptation of a classic of French literature.

Luc Plamondon believes in Quebec and in its artists. Over and above his personal successes, he has enabled many Quebec singers and stage performers to gain recognition in France. He has also been a champion of copyright.

Mr. Plamondon has received many honours over the years. His songs and his name have been on the lips of Quebeckers for many years. Today, finally, he is being honoured by the Canadian Music Hall of Fame.