Jean Augustine

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, those two questions cover the crux of Bill C-108.

It is important for everyone to understand that there is no cost to the government. Actually, a benefit is derived from that involvement.

It is also important to note that the United Nations has acclaimed Canada as the best country in the world in which to live. We must ensure that quality of life. What goes into that quality of life? Accessible, affordable, decent housing and home ownership. Therefore it is important for us to continue to have the necessary mortgages, loans and availability of funds. With the minimum down payment, individuals will have the opportunity to access housing and all of the things that come with having a roof over one's head and providing for one's family.

It is important that we as a government continue the financing and support the National Housing Act and the CMHC to ensure that we provide loans to families to access housing.

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-108 at second reading, a bill to amend the National Housing Act.

I can speak from firsthand experience of the federal government's concern in social housing matters. I am pleased to represent the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore where the government is funding projects such as Kilcooley gardens co-op and William Kinnett co-op housing, housing residents who are single parents and persons with disabilities.

I am proud to be part of a government that supports non-profit housing which promotes the security of tenure and a sense of community among its members. I can also speak to the benefits of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's mortgage loan statistics.

In my riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore from 1992 to October 1995 a total of 1,567 homebuyers took advantage of CMHC's mortgage loan insurance. Of these, 708 were first time homebuyers who were able to gain access to their home under the CMHC's first home loan insurance, the 5 per cent down program as we call it.

I am pleased to speak in support of the bill because I understand the crucial importance of it to ensure that CMHC can continue its mortgage loan insurance activity.

I am bewildered why certain members of the House are not able to support the bill. I can only assume it is because they do not fully understand the provisions of the bill and cannot appreciate the important role mortgage loan insurance will play in helping Canadians to gain access to decent affordable housing.

Many of my colleagues have already spoken to this issue. However, it is obvious the message has not gotten through. Allow me to spell it out one more time more clearly for the benefit of those having difficulty understanding why the bill is important to Canadians.

NHA mortgage loan insurance makes home ownership accessible to millions of Canadians regardless of where they live. This access is under similar terms and conditions with the smallest feasible down payment and at the lowest cost to borrowers. CMHC is able to provide this insurance at no cost to the government.

Bill C-108 is required in order for CMHC to continue to underwrite home mortgage loan insurance within the legislative limit. Let me be very clear on this point. If CMHC cannot continue its mortgage loan insurance activity, thousands of Canadians will not have access to home ownership. It is as simple and as serious as that.

NHA mortgage loan insurance works like this. Most lenders cannot make a mortgage for more than 75 per cent of the value of a property without mortgage loan insurance. This means those not able to save a down payment of 25 per cent would be locked out of home ownership without mortgage loan insurance. NHA mortgage loan insurance provides approved lenders with insurance against borrower default or residential mortgage loans.

NHA mortgage loan insurance allows Canadians to take out a mortgage with an NHA approved lender with a down payment of only 10 per cent of the property value or 5 per cent for first time homebuyers.

NHA mortgage loan insurance requires the payment of application fees and insurance premiums. It is not just handed out for free by the government. These premiums are charged as a percentage of the loan based on the amount of the loan and its ratio to the value of the property. Premiums are set so as to ensure the fund always contains enough to cover any claims.

Since mortgage loan insurance protects lenders against default losses, they are able to charge the borrower the lowest possible rate of interest, which means mortgage loan insurance plays a critical role in reducing the cost of home ownership for Canadians. It also plays a critical role in ensuring relative equal access to mortgage financing in all parts of the country. This access is made possible through the cross-subsidization of higher risk business against lower risk business. In this way the mortgage insurance fund is self-financing. In other words, it does not cost the government anything to provide mortgage loan insurance to lenders so Canadians can have access to decent affordable housing.

We recognized a few years ago that even a 10 per cent down payment was difficult for some people to manage which is why the government introduced the first home loan insurance initiative in 1992 and reduced the minimum required down payment to 5 per cent for first time homebuyers. The initiative was introduced for a two-year period but was extended for an additional five years until 1999.

As many members will know, this 5 per cent down initiative has been a tremendous success in helping to increase home ownership in Canada. By further reducing the minimum required down payment, home ownership has moved from a dream to a reality for the many Canadians who can afford monthly mortgage payments but who are having trouble saving for a down payment.

Certain members might not be aware there are Canadians who cannot afford a down payment of 25 per cent of the price of a home, even the most modest home. Are there members in the House who would refuse these Canadians a chance to become homeowners? I must assume my colleagues are not so out of touch with the economic realities facing many Canadians that they are not aware of the difficulties some people have in raising enough money for a convenient 25 per cent down payment. This is a reality for many people. That does not mean we should exclude them from access to decent housing. The government supports families and individuals who aspire to be homeowners.

We know many Canadians have a strong desire to become homeowners and we understand the tremendous importance of helping them to do just that. We know how important a home is to people not only in terms of an investment but for the impact on their quality of life.

When people are well housed, they are better able to participate in their communities. They enjoy a greater sense of control over their lives. It is no surprise that Canadians are willing to make great sacrifices to achieve home ownership. Saving for a down payment

is a major undertaking, yet Canadians do it willingly because they want to fulfil their dream of owning a home, a place of their own.

Perhaps it has been a long time since some members of the House had to worry about such mundane matters as saving money to buy a home. Let me tell them that a down payment even on a starter home represents a substantial amount of money for many Canadians. It is not easy to save for a down payment these days.

Does that mean we should just close the door on those people, tell them and their children that they cannot own a home? What kind of a country would we have if we did that? Certainly not a country I would want to live in I can assure you.

Home ownership is part of the Canadian dream, a dream which this government believes should be shared with all Canadians, not just a privileged few. We believe that all Canadians deserve the chance to become homeowners. We believe that the federal government should continue to play a role in helping them to do so. And we believe that NHA mortgage loan insurance is the best way for us to fulfil that important role at no cost to the government.

Millions of Canadians depend on NHA mortgage loan insurance. In fact, members of the House will be pleased to learn that more than 3.5 million Canadian households have been helped to purchase a home since the government initiated NHA mortgage loan insurance in 1946. That figure represents nearly one-third of Canada's housing stock. In 1994 alone, CMHC provided mortgage insurance for 40 per cent of all residential mortgages in Canada. That represents over 300,000 housing units.

In the riding of Calgary Southwest for example, from 1992 to October of this year, 5,600 households accessed home ownership through NHA insurance. Two thousand, two hundred and fifty of these households were first time buyers taking advantage of the lower down payment to become homeowners.

This year alone, more than 1,000 homeowner units were insured in Calgary Southwest under the NHA with over half, 538, being first time homebuyers. Obviously CMHC mortgage loan insurance is a huge success, a very popular vehicle for Canadians to gain access to home ownership.

Today we are presenting a bill to ensure that Canadians can continue to have access to home ownership, a bill that will ensure the continued operation of NHA mortgage loan insurance, a bill which is good news for all Canadians, a bill which this government would like to see passed.

Those members who oppose this bill should keep in mind the disservice they are doing to Canadians. Are Reform members aware that 63 per cent of the adult population living in rental accommodations plan on buying a home? Are they aware that 40 per cent of all residential mortgages finalized in 1994 were NHA insured?

Does that party know that 230,000 first time homebuyers would not have been able to purchase a home if not for the first home loan insurance initiative made possible by NHA mortgage loan insurance? Do they know that new construction to the end of October 1994 totals more than 24,000 units, including single detached homes, apartments, row houses and manufactured homes? Do they not realize the tremendous economic opportunities, especially the significant employment generation, resulting from all this activity, opportunities that would have been lost if not for NHA insurance?

As I have stated, the mortgage loan insurance has enjoyed overwhelming popularity over the years precisely because it is so crucial to helping Canadians enjoy the benefits of home ownership.

Opposing this bill means opposing the expectations of Canadians to become homeowners. Some might argue that the government should get out of the business of mortgage loan insurance and leave it to private industry. A little bit of thought on that subject would turn up some reasons why it is not a good idea to leave this important area to the private sector alone.

First, without CMHC providing mortgage insurance, Canadians would be at the mercy of a private sector monopoly. Higher prices and fewer choices would be the result. Housing would then be less affordable, especially for the first time homebuyers.

Second, we know from past practices of private insurers that homeowners in all parts of the country would not have access to mortgage insurance. What would happen to the many Canadians living in communities which the private sector would refuse to serve?

Historically we know that private insurers have underserved rural areas. If NHA mortgage loan insurance were not available in rural communities, many rural Canadians would have to leave those areas in order to access home ownership because there would be areas which the private insurer would not want to serve, make no mistake about it. What would happen to the people living there? Quite simply, they would have very limited access to home ownership.

As long as CMHC is around to provide equal access to mortgage loan insurance, we do not have to travel that ugly road. With CMHC in the industry, Canadians have continued access to low cost financing. Canadians living in areas of the country that the

private insurers will not or cannot serve are able to obtain housing financing at relatively equal terms and conditions.

It should be obvious to members that competition is the best way to keep prices at the lowest possible level to encourage innovation in the mortgage industry to meet the changing needs of Canadian housing finance consumers.

Millions of Canadians have benefited from NHA mortgage loan insurance in the past. Thousands continue to benefit each year. Members of the opposition should clearly understand and support this bill. I have to wonder why they are having such difficulty with this very simple issue.

The federal government has a constitutional responsibility for banking and finance. CMHC mortgage insurance and guarantee are a demonstration that the federal government is fulfilling this responsibility. Without CMHC there would be a federal policy vacuum in the system of housing finance. The result would be unequal access to home loans across the country. Furthermore, marginal borrowers could pay more for low down payment mortgages or have no access to financing altogether.

What is the motivation of those who question the crucial importance of NHA mortgage insurance? Surely it cannot be to save the federal government money. CMHC operates its mortgage insurance fund at no cost to the government. CMHC insurance is provided at no cost to the Canadian taxpayer. I repeat this. CMHC is required to achieve self-sufficiency strictly from the premiums and fees that it charges. CMHC is not part of the problem. In fact, it is part of the solution.

Members might be interested to learn that CMHC has returned to the Government of Canada over $1 billion since its incorporation in 1946. In addition, in 1992, $55 million was contributed to the government from the mortgage insurance fund.

We in Canada are fortunate to be one of the best housed nations in the world. There can be no doubt that NHA mortgage loan insurance has had a significant role to play in bringing us to that enviable state. If we are to maintain that high standard, CMHC must be able to continue providing NHA mortgage loan insurance so that Canadians will have relatively equal access to low cost mortgage financing today and in the future.

Yes, we are fortunate to have such a high standard of housing in the country. Over the years, with the leadership of CMHC in the housing sector, Canada has developed a broad range of housing expertise in the public and private sectors as well as in the academic community. We are willing to share that expertise with countries all over the world. Representatives from a variety of countries come to Canada to learn about our operations because they believe that we have not one of the best, but the best system of public mortgage loan insurance in the world and they want to learn about it.

I want to conclude by saying that CMHC involvement in the international arena is not limited to helping other countries develop mortgage insurance, it also shares and explores possibilities in many other areas. I ask all members to support Bill C-108, which will make it possible for all Canadians to have their greatest dream fulfilled: owning a home.

[Department Of Health Act, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues to speak to Bill C-95, an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain acts. I want to assure all Canadians who are watching today's debate that this is a housekeeping bill. It is not a bill encroaching on provincial powers. It is not a bill kidnapping powers. It is not a bill discussing a two tier system, one for the rich and one for the poor.

In any of the polls done, it has been shown that 89 per cent of Canadians believe we have the most important and the best health care system in the world. They believe in the principles involved in the health act: universality, portability, accessibility, comprehensiveness, public administration.

Health Canada has certain responsibilities that are implicit in its mandate. Bill C-95 is attempting to make this explicitly acknowledged. Bill C-95 is before the House at a time when so many things within the world of biomedical technology are before us.

Bill C-95 affirms a whole series of things we promised in our red book. Partnership and co-ordination are words that are very important to us as we move on this issue. Those are the reasons for this proposed legislation. It is to confirm the existence of the Department of Health and to specify that mandate working with the provinces, working for a holistic approach to health, taking into consideration the social as well as the physical and mental well-being of our population.

This proposed legislation contains a series of provisions concerning the transfer of responsibility. I want to affirm-I think there was general agreement on all sides-that the history of universal medicare and the health department are intertwined.

The department has played an essential role in the evolution of medicare from its infancy in the 1950s and 1960s to its current status as one of the most respected health systems in the world. Why is Canada's health system so respected? One of the reasons is that it is predominantly a single payer, publicly financed health system. That unique feature of our health system has been there from the beginning.

When we were putting in place universal hospital insurance coverage under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, the federal government cost shared the start up of this component of the health system. The same happened when it came time to establish universal coverage for physician services under the Medical Care Act. Federal cost sharing was essential to assisting provinces and territories in establishing their medical care insurance programs. Medicare as we know it would not have gotten off the ground without the federal role in and commitment to health and its financing.

Cost sharing gave Canada universal hospital and medical care insurance, but cost sharing had its shortcomings. The change in financing arrangements in 1977 to block funding under the EPF, established programs financing, provided the provinces and territories with the flexibility necessary to focus beyond the traditional hospital and medical components of their health systems.

Anyone who says that the federal government is not a financial player in health is not looking at the numbers, which I will provide. In 1995-96, $15.5 billion in EPF health contributions will go to the provinces and territories. The long tradition of block funding and the flexibility it affords provinces and territories in their health programs will continue with the Canada health and social transfer.

Scheduled to begin in 1996-97, the CHST will transfer $26.9 billion to the provinces and territories for their health, post-secondary education and social assistance programs. In 1997-98, the CHST will contribute $25.1 billion. No one is denying the importance of the CHST reductions but let us put these reductions in perspective.

The reduction of $2.5 billion for 1996-97 amounts to less than 3 per cent of total estimated provincial spending on health, post-secondary education and social services and less than 2 per cent of provincial government revenues. The CHST is a balanced and fair approach to dealing with Canada's deficit and debt in making our health system fiscally sustainable.

Federal transfer reductions do not threaten our universal publicly financed health system. The minister has said this over and over in the House. Let us not be fooled by those who say it will and that privatization will save the health system.

The Canadian experience bears out results from studies by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Bank. Both have said that cost containment is more successful in health systems with a high share of public financing. The public share of health expenditures in Canada was about 72 per cent in 1993. The rest, 28 per cent, came from private sources

ranging from employment based supplementary benefits to individual out of pocket purchases.

In terms of cost control the public sector succeeded in containing the rates of increase to 2 per cent in 1993. Private sector health expenditures grew three times faster, with an increase of 6.4 per cent.

Canada's publicly financed, single payer health system has the built in capability to pull various levers to rein in costs. Global budgets for hospitals and capping payments to physicians are two examples which come to mind. There are many others which provinces and territories can use without resorting to privatization or putting national health principles in jeopardy.

The federal government and the Department of Health played a key and necessary role in building our publicly financed, single payer health system which continues to reflect the values of fairness and equity on which the system was originally built. The need for a strong federal presence and role in health remains important in ensuring that fairness and equity are at the centre of our health system.

I assure all Canadians, especially the seniors in Etobicoke-Lakeshore who are watching the debate in the House, that Bill C-95 is a housekeeping bill and deserves the attention of all members.

[Excise Tax Act, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring coherence to this debate and to speak to Bill C-103. Bill C-103 will play a major role in maintaining a vibrant and flourishing Canadian magazine industry. I want to use my time to present a broader perspective of the government's ongoing commitment to this industry.

This bill should be understood in the context of a long-established tradition of government support to the Canadian magazine industry as well as the industry's contribution to Canada's economy. More important, in a country where natural geography makes communication difficult, magazines play a key unifying role.

Canadian periodicals are an essential medium of cultural expression for Canadians. They serve as channels for conveying Canadian ideas, information and values. They are an integral part of the process whereby Canadians define themselves as a nation.

Beyond the direct social and cultural impact of the Canadian magazine industry, there are sizeable indirect effects which contribute to the smooth functioning of the Canadian economy.

Unfortunately Canadian magazines are confronted with a series of unique challenges: massive penetration of the Canadian market by imported magazines; the relatively small size of the Canadian population and its dispersion over vast territory; the openness of Canadians to foreign cultural products; the effect of the cover prices of imported magazines on the Canadian price structure; and the impact of overflow advertising on the potential advertising market in Canada.

Even if the magazine industry has flourished culturally with over 1,300 titles, its financial position is fragile with overall pre-tax profits of less than 6 per cent of revenues of $795 million in 1993-94.

The Canadian government has supported the domestic magazine industry and will continue to do so for many reasons. The principal reason is the importance that Canadians place on having a means of expressing their unique identity and the difficult and challenging environment the Canadian magazine industry faces.

The need for structural measures of support for the Canadian magazine industry has long been recognized by successive Canadian governments. Over the years a number of policy and program instruments have been designed and put into place to help ensure the development of the Canadian magazine industry while not restricting the sale of imported periodicals in Canada.

My friends across the way who speak to this issue are somehow misguided. We are doing much collectively to provide a dynamic and original culture which nurtures our national identity. Questions such as, what is culture, or do we have a single overarching cultural policy, may be good subjects for discussion. The truth is that cultural challenges in Canada have always been addressed by specific cultural policies put together by governments.

If we look at cultural policy goals pursued by consecutive or successive Canadian governments over more than half a century, their consistency is remarkable. Specific policy objectives developed by a succession of governments clearly reflected the reality of an original Canadian culture. Uppermost among these objectives is Canadian ownership and control of cultural enterprises, a made in Canada broadcasting system, the protection of sovereignty in the arts, cultural expression, the creation of an environment enabling cultural industries to sustain themselves and the recognition on the world stage of Canada's artistic and cultural accomplishments. Our global cultural policy was designed to promote the development of a diverse yet distinctive Canadian culture fostering mutual understanding, identity and quality of life.

Successive governments have recognized that Canada with its two official languages benefits from easy access to two of the greatest cultures in the world. The presence of our First Nations peoples and the diverse origins of our population have been justifiably looked upon as a fertile source of inspiration.

Canadian governments have also understood the influence of the United States on Canada's culture and identity. On one hand the fabric of our society can be enriched by our direct access to American cultural products and means of expression. On the other hand, this same access can weaken our ability to create and express ourselves in a distinctly Canadian fashion in our own country.

Canadian governments could see the evidence that Canadians do want Canadian cultural products and that Canadians are prepared to pay a price for them. Canadians also accept that government has a role in striking the right balance between supports to Canadian cultural development and access to other cultures. In short, Canadian governments are involved in cultural policy because the public interest is at stake.

Perhaps more than anything else, Canadian culture is vulnerable. We said in the red book:

Culture is the very essence of national identity, the bedrock of national sovereignty and national pride-. At a time when globalization and the information and communications revolution are erasing national borders, Canada needs more than ever to commit itself to cultural development.

Canadian culture is also the substance and the reflection of who we are and what we form as a people. Our landscape is part of it; our tastes, our languages, our pastimes, the way we view the world, these all enter in. Our culture and our life as a nation are intertwined. As the reflection of who we are, our cultural expression becomes the aggregate of our voices and creative energies. For those reasons alone, Canada's cultural development and the quality of its cultural expression are worthy of government's attention.

My Reform friend said governments should stay out. But we know that Canadians are enthusiastic about the state of the arts in Canada and the involvement of all governments in that state of the arts. The quality and abundance of creative work and performance have never been higher. I think my friend noted that. Strength and certainty are now evident in the work of our writers, our artists, our performers. We celebrate their achievements as well as their commitment, a commitment after all to ourselves.

As a society we wish to reward our artists. They need not only our interest and attention, but also material conditions within which they can engage in their work and their art. In so doing, they can offer all of us a better chance to reach our own potential as a people and as individuals. I have many friends in the arts world and I know of individuals who are struggling to keep body and soul together and bread on the table.

Culture is a complex whole. It includes the knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, laws, customs and all other capabilities and habits acquired by the members of a particular society. Like other fundamental concepts, culture can only be understood by a familiarity with the realities it summarizes. It may be difficult to define American, French or Canadian culture, but the artistic products of those cultures, their books, magazines and films for example, can readily reflect and inform the cultures of which they are products.

Canadians are avid consumers of cultural products. After the Dutch, we are the second highest per capita purchasers of records and tapes in the world. We are also among the world's great film and movie goers.

Canadian culture flourishes in our major cities. It thrives in every hamlet and draws strength from every region. It comes from passion, talent, commitment and hard work. The wonder of Canadian culture in all its diversity is its ability to expand our horizons as individuals and to bring us together as human beings and as a society. Our culture, our Canadian, diverse, original culture, is part of our identity and greatness. We must stand on guard for it. It is the soul of our country.

Our bookstores, our news stands, our record shops, cinemas and television screens testify to Canada's position as one of the greatest importers of cultural products in the world. We enjoy our access to other cultures. However, we repeatedly ask ourselves whether there should not be a more normal balance between Canadian perspectives and those from elsewhere. This is the crux of the bill.

Together, our arts and cultural industries contribute over $24 billion to the gross domestic product or 4 per cent of the GDP of the entire economy, and important for us, 660,000 jobs. This did not happen by accident. This did not happen, as our friend across the way would say, by letting the individuals do it. It was the result of a combination of the desire and determination of successive governments and the great talent which exists in our country.

The challenges facing the Canadian market for cultural content are growing increasingly complex every day. There can be little doubt that today's reality of fiscal restraint will continue to affect our future activities. Policy priorities change to take account of new challenges, world trends and windows of opportunity. The goals to be met by those priorities however should not change. The scene changes, the values do not.

This is important work, work which government has been doing successfully for years through such policy tools as public cultural institutions, support measures, and legislation and regulation. In fact, the development of legislative and regulatory measures has been particularly effective in promoting Canadian cultural sovereignty. Few measures have been more efficient than those dealing with Canadian content.

Canada has not been the only country to implement such legislative and regulatory measures. For example, specific restrictions are common for publishing, film and videos in countries like Argentina, Brazil, France, Mexico and Australia. Need I go on?

Venezuela has specific policies and requirements for newspapers and periodical publishing. In film and video, France, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Philippines, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland maintain varying degrees of restrictions on inward investment. Mexico maintains limitations in film and video, broadcasting and periodical publishing. Brazil has grouped television, radio and the print media as one of the strategic industries to which it applies the same foreign investment restrictions.

We cannot go by a rule which says the one with the deepest pockets wins. As a market, Canada is one-tenth the size of the United States. The cost of producing a film or television program is

the same in Canada as it is in the U.S. Our ability to recover those costs is one-tenth.

I must emphasize that it is never an issue of keeping other products out. That is not the intent of this bill. Canada is the most open country when it comes to enjoying the cultural products of other countries. The issue is ensuring the development and distribution of Canadian content and ensuring that Canadians know it is there and they have access to it.

The Canadian government has been consistent. Its magazine policy has not changed. I will say this for the information of the Reform members who spoke against this, with these amendments to the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, the federal government is modernizing its policy instruments. In this way, the entire range of government policy and program instruments can better achieve the overall objective of a vital and flourishing Canadian magazine industry.

Those in the industry are depending on those of us in this House to ensure that Bill C-103 gets swift passage.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak for a few minutes on Bill C-88 and look at some of the allegations that have been made in previous debates by some members about Bill C-88 and the

unwarranted concerns those allegations may have engendered in other quarters.

The opposition's allegations about Bill C-88 stem from an inability or an obstinate unwillingness to understand the plain meaning of the text of the bill. The Minister of Industry responded in detail to those allegations in this House in May and in June. I will refer to some of the points that need repeating.

Only in rare cases would the federal government be a complainant in a dispute under the agreement on internal trade. If a dispute were resolved in favour of the federal government and if the province involved refused to comply with the impartial panel's findings, the federal government could withdraw benefits of equivalent effect.

Such retaliation would have to be in the same sector as the original violation or in another sector covered by the agreement. Retaliation could not involve-and I think this is important-transfer payments or social programs because those things are not covered by the agreement.

Bill C-88 does not make the federal government the policeman of the agreement on internal trade, as the opposition mistakenly insists. Any careful reading of the headnotes to clause 9 of Bill C-88 and article 1710 of the agreement on internal trade, combined with a minimum of logical reasoning, immediately gainsays the wild allegations that have been made.

It is important to stress that Bill C-88 deals only with what the federal government must do to live up to its obligations under the internal trade agreement and nothing else. Notwithstanding the fact that the concerns expressed were totally unwarranted and clearly tactically motivated, the Minister of Industry has spent some time in committee and in other places speaking to the amendments in Bill C-88.

I will reaffirm the fact that to date, Alberta and Newfoundland have passed legislation to implement the agreement and to comply with their respective obligations under it. Since tabling Bill C-88 in the House on May 1, in the cold light of day the actual substance of the bill has proven to be uncontroversial and designed only to enable the federal government to comply with its obligations under the agreement on internal trade and to meet the negotiated commitments, both legal and moral, to the other parties to the agreement, that is, the provinces and the territories.

There is so much one can say in support of this bill. I want to stress the fact that this straightforward consideration of the bill has been more or less reaffirmed in the discussions and debates which have taken place. It is important to note the urgency of what we are asking now. The passing of Bill C-88 is important to underscore the federal part in ensuring the agreement is implemented.

This is a historic piece of legislation. It will allow the federal government to continue to play a lead role in concert with the governments of the other parties to the agreement. It is also intended to implement the first comprehensive domestic trade agreement in Canada since the British North America Act in 1867.

In the 128 years since 1867 the Canadian economy has grown and evolved in ways never imagined by the fathers of Confederation. The federal government still has constitutional responsibility for interprovincial trade and commerce, but successive governments as a matter of policy have chosen to work co-operatively with the provinces to address internal trade problems.

Barriers and impediments to internal trade lead to the inefficient use of resources. They limit the ability of industry to take advantages of economies of scale and to maintain competitive market positions. The result is to reduce the competitiveness of Canadian business and to adversely affect the Canadian economy.

It is incumbent on all Canadian governments to work together to make the national economy work as effectively and efficiently as possible so that all Canadians can enjoy the benefits of strong economic development, growth and prosperity. I call on all members to look at this straightforward legislation which will provide the needed facility as we work together to provide the kind of environment needed by our businesses.

We have sought to work co-operatively. The whole process which produced the agreement is testament to that. Our approach has been one which speaks to the fact that we are a truly responsible Canadian government. As a truly responsible Canadian government we can take those working arrangements between provinces into the future. I call on hon. members to give their support.

[National Unity, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in a show of support for national unity, thousands of students and residents of Etobicoke-Lakeshore are holding out a friendly hand to Quebecers.

As a friendship offering, the vast majority of people in Etobicoke-Lakeshore have put their hand prints and signatures on huge banners that will be sent to the people of Quebec. This gesture shows that they have respect for Quebec and hope to see this province remain in the Canadian fold.

With "Here's My Hand", the community of Etobicoke-Lakeshore of all races, colour, creed and ethnicity asked Quebec to take pride as we do in what we have accomplished together. Now more than ever, we must extend our hands and continue to work together for our future as one strong and united Canada.

[Excise Tax Act, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was right at the very end.

We must continue to find ways to maintain a place for the rich tapestry of ideas and information we now have in Canadian periodicals. To that end, I urge the House to promptly pass this legislation.

[Excise Tax Act, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in the report stage debate of Bill C-103 and to stand in support of those members on this side of the House who were speaking to this bill.

I want to begin by giving a bit of my background as an educator and as someone who has enjoyed and is very concerned about the Canadian magazine industry. A task force on this industry was established in March 1993 with a mandate to recommend the update of existing policy instruments and to propose new measures in support of the Canadian magazine industry, which so many of us have enjoyed and are enjoying.

Since 1965 there have been two legislative measures in place to support the Canadian magazine industry: the Income Tax Act section 19 and the customs tariff code. The objective of both of those measures was to ensure an adequate flow of advertising revenues to support a vibrant Canadian periodical industry. These instruments of public policy have in large part been successful. However, technological developments in an increasingly global trading environment have meant that those two measures in place for almost 30 years are no longer completely adequate to meet the policy objective for which they were designed.

The first thing the task force had to do was learn about the industry. I would like to take this opportunity to give some background on the industry to put this bill in perspective to see whether the Reformers would appreciate some of the aspects of the bill that we are supporting on this side of the House.

The task force commissioned two reports. One prepared by Informetrica Ltd. examined the economic environment within which the Canadian magazine industry operates. A second, prepared by Lee Anderson of Carleton University, analysed the Canadian advertising market with particular reference to the Canadian magazine industry. The Informetrica study provided some basic information on the economics of periodical publishing, its products, markets, and cost structure.

In 1991-92 the Canadian industry produced 1,440 magazines, with revenues totalling more than $846 million. The Canadian magazine industry is one of the most important media pipelines between the generators of Canadian information, ideas, and views and the Canadian public.

In 1990 more families participated in buying magazines, both Canadian and foreign, than any other cultural activity except perhaps the buying of newspapers. Compared to 1978, the percentage of households buying magazines increased by 10 per cent, to an average of 69.8 per cent.

The domestic market is measured by Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada estimates that there are more than three million subscriptions to U.S. periodicals not included in the trade data. In 1991 Statistics Canada information presents one view of the size of the market and the Canadian magazine publishers' share of that market. Using these measures, Canadian publishers account for 54.8 per cent of the total domestic market.

One area of difficulty, of course, is that subscriptions ordered by Canadians directly from the U.S. and mailed from the U.S. to Canadians are not counted by any of the existing statistical systems. The value of magazines imported is the value at the border, with no real measure of the advertising contained therein. Therefore, with adjustments, an alternative measure based on circulation revenue suggests a Canadian publishers' share of about 25.5 per cent of the domestic market.

Although editorially rich and diverse, the Canadian industry is not on strong economic footing. We do not have to go very far from the House to recognize this. The 1991 statistics show that more than half of Canadian magazines had no operating profit. The average operating profit for the industry as a whole was only 2.4 per cent. In any business that is really not good.

Despite the strength of our mix of editorial content and diversity and the size and profitability of Canadian magazines, they are still very much limited in terms of their potential for revenue. The issue here is one of relative market size and economies of scale.

Magazines have two clients, the reader and the advertiser. The building blocks of a magazine are circulation, editorial content, and advertising. The larger a periodical circulation, the more advertising it can attract. The greater a magazine's advertising revenue, the more it can afford to spend on editorial content, which in turn makes the magazine more attractive to consumers and increases its

circulation. Circulation is crucial to advertisers and therefore crucial to a magazine's advertising revenue.

The Informetrica study reported that circulation revenue accounted for $245 million or 29 per cent of the total revenue of Canadian magazines in 1991 and 1992. Magazines can be circulated on news-stands or through subscriptions. For Canadian magazines, approximately 10 per cent of English-language and 27 per cent of French-language magazines are sold on news-stands. By contrast, 89.3 per cent of all imported consumer magazines are destined for news-stands. That is not to suggest that the government or the domestic magazine industry are interested in restricting the access of foreign magazines to our news-stands. These statistics are merely presented to demonstrate the competition Canadian magazines are up against on news-stands.

Subscriptions are the main source of circulation revenue for most Canadian magazines. A large subscription base provides a publisher with stability, helps in scheduling production units, and is particularly important for cash flow, since most subscriptions are paid in advance or early in the subscription period. I am sure that most of us who have subscribed to magazines know that we hear from the magazine far in advance of the expiry date of the subscription.

Advertising revenue is a lifeline of the Canadian magazine industry and crucial to the survival of Canadian magazines in an indigenous Canadian magazine industry. Sixty-five per cent of all revenue of Canadian magazines is derived from advertising. An adequate advertising revenue base is essential to the economic foundation of periodical publishing in Canada.

Without a healthy Canadian magazine industry Canada's policy objective of ensuring that Canadians have access to Canadian ideas and information through Canadian periodicals cannot be met. Policy instruments that have been in place since 1965 are designed to achieve that purpose. Encouraging magazine advertisers to reach Canadian consumers through Canadian magazines and periodicals is as important today as it was 30 years ago.

The advertising study commissioned by the task force showed that magazines have experienced more annual declines in advertising dollars than any other medium in Canada. Television's rise as an advertising medium over the 30-year period is perhaps the most significant trend behind the declining share of magazine advertising revenues.

Magazines tend to be disproportionately affected in economic downturns through drops in circulation. Whereas people will continue to watch TV, they would cancel their magazine subscriptions to save money and have cash flow. That affects the entire industry.

The bottom line is that the amount of money spent by advertisers to reach the Canadian consumer is not likely to grow. Therefore, within the Canadian advertising market it is extremely unlikely that the share held by periodicals will increase.

The two studies that were commissioned demonstrate very clearly the precarious situation the Canadian magazine industry finds itself in. This is a point I want to underscore, the precarious situation the Canadian magazine industry finds itself in. It must compete in a market that is dominated by imported magazines and it must compete for advertising revenues.

The consequence for the Canadian magazine industry and thus for Canadian cultural development will be very serious if we do not take the necessary steps to maintain the structural support necessary to continue to meet the government's longstanding policy objective for Canadian magazines of ensuring that they have adequate access to advertising revenues.

The measures in Bill C-103 are designed to support the Canadian magazine industry so that it can conduct business and be competitive. It is simply an extension of Canada's longstanding policy against split runs. The measures strive to plug a loophole in the tariff item so that the exploitation by Sports Illustrated Canada over the last two years can be dealt with. However, Sports Illustrated Canada got around the measures by electronically beaming the magazine to a Canadian printing plant.

I know that the members across the way are speaking in support of Sports Illustrated. I want to make clear that these measures in the present bill are in no way designed to limit Canadian access to foreign publications. Canadians will still be free to read whatever they want, including an imported edition of Sports Illustrated. Our borders remain open to the millions of copies of American magazines that are bought here each year. The best way to support the Canadian magazine industry is to adopt measures that will encourage original content, regardless of the country of origin.

We do not want a kind of recycled editorial material that is commonly dumped in split runs. We must continue to finds ways-

[Customs Act, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the comments made and the questions asked are very important and are at the basis of my decision to speak to Bill C-102.

Perhaps I can speak to the fact that Etobicoke-Lakeshore is geographically centred in an area close to major highways, the Toronto airport and the borders through Niagara Falls and Windsor. There are thousands and thousands of small businesses, small industries and small manufacturers that are very interested in ensuring their businesses prosper, continue to grow and are a hub of activity in Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

When I speak to business people one thing they say is that governments can do just so much. The business people need to keep government out of the way they operate. They need governments to facilitate. They need the bureaucracy, the paperwork and all such things to be facilitating. If the policies, guidelines, rules and tariffs are facilitated, we can do what we do best. We can produce. We can make sure our production lines are moving, make sure we provide opportunities for individuals and make sure we are part of the global world before us.

We should look at tariff regimes and at what we are doing to ensure that the bureaucracy and the paperwork are minimized for businesses. We should ensure that businesses continue to grow and develop and that we produce employment for individuals.

Not only would I take the message back, but I would make sure that businesses in my area have copies of the legislation and that they understand fully what the government is ensuring will happen for them.

[Customs Act, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in this discussion today on Bill C-102, an act to amend the Customs Act and the customs tariff and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

I know there are many in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the business and industry community, the manufacturers, the exporters, the trading companies, and those who travel either as tourists or in business, who are very interested in these amendments.

I thought I would have to debate some of the issues in the bill and call for support from the opposition. I was pleased to hear the support of my hon. colleague from the Bloc and also support from the Reform member who spoke just before me.

It seems as though there is general agreement among all members that the amendments in Bill C-102 would do a number of things. They would increase the capability of transferring goods to export market, enable us to be competitive, and encourage and improve the capacity for people doing business in Canada and across our borders.

I want to draw attention to some of the concepts of good government as we see them in Bill C-102. A number of measures provided for in this bill build on the government's review of Canada's tariff regime.

I want to take the opportunity to compliment not only the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue, whose work and whose departments have brought forward these amendments, but also the committee on finance that worked on so many of the pieces of legislation, such as S-9, C-105, C-90, C-103, and these present amendments before us.

This bill introduces tariff reductions on a broad range of goods used as inputs in Canadian manufacturing operations. The bill also introduces changes. I believe there was general agreement on these changes to enhance, streamline, and consolidate Canada's duty deferral programs and also to make them more accessible to all manufacturers. These changes exist not only to enhance but also to reduce input costs. These changes allow for regions to more effectively market the programs in competition with the U.S. free trade zones to attract and keep investment in Canada.

There are several amendments to Bill C-102. In the context of good government, these amendments are designed to lower business input costs and maintain and enhance our competitiveness and therefore create more jobs and opportunities, as we promised in our red book.

Bill C-102 provides for a number of technical changes to simplify, clarify, modernize and bring up to date the customs tariff and its administration, to make it easier and less costly for business to access tariff relief programs. We heard earlier some examples of individuals in the business community who work with rules that are bureaucratic, out of sync with the way of doing business in today's world.

Several amendments to Bill C-102 resulted from broad consultations with the private sector and at the request of those sectors. We heard earlier from the parliamentary secretary about the changes that were made as a result of the input from consultations and presentations that were made to the committee in the drafting stage.

The measures adopted in the bill will do a number of things. They will provide $60 million in import tariff relief to Canadian manufacturers to level the playing field with NAFTA trading partners. I can say that in Etobicoke-Lakeshore business people are very concerned about this area and I am sure will be quite pleased with the tariff relief section.

These amendments will also position Canadian businesses with a duty deferral program to more easily attract investment and compete in expanding world markets with a minimum of customs overhead. Again, I think every member in the House who is in touch with export business people knows the issue is an important one for them.

The amendments will also assist and provide opportunities for provincial and municipal governments to enrich the duty deferral program with local incentives. It is always the way in which we on this side of the House work to ensure that the municipal, regional, and other levels of government work in accordance with policies and with what we are attempting to do in the House.

The improvement of services to travellers through simplification of customs procedures will allow customs to focus on smuggling and commercial importation. Those who have been out of the country recently and have come back into the country with goods would already know the implication of this change.

Enacting this bill will not only ensure competitiveness and make all of the housekeeping amendments, but it will also increase the value of goods travellers can bring back to Canada after absences abroad. As someone who has travelled in the last few months, I had to fill out forms and state what I was bringing back into the country. I also became aware of exemptions Canadian travellers are allowed versus the U.S. exemptions, as we cross from the U.S. into Canada. It is a positive step toward the accord we recently signed on our shared border.

There are several other technical things within the bill. I want to stress a few that I am sure my constituents in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, who are watching very closely the passage of this and who are awaiting its full implementation, would like me to emphasize.

I would like to draw attention to specifically the amendments to allow for possible future improvements to preferential tariff treatment for the world's poorest developing countries to improve their export opportunities. This is very important for a number of people within the communities attempting to do business in this area.

The protection of all goods and jobs and the withdrawal of the British preferential tariff, or the BPT rate as it is called, on certain rubber footwear ensure that all manufacturers and producers are on an even playing field. I mentioned earlier travellers' exemptions and the basket tariff items to facilitate the processing of travellers.

In the context of good government I stress that the amendments will facilitate smooth business across our borders. They will encourage competitiveness. They will respond to our manufacturers, small business people and exporters. They will provide opportunities to provincial and municipal governments to come up with local initiatives to deal with free trade arrangements. All the amendments in Bill C-102 will give Canada the climate to ensure that we have the facility to trade across our borders on an equal footing. The Access to Information Act will protect the confidentiality of taxpayer information provided by importers pursuant to

the Customs Act and the customs tariff. Those changes would be greatly appreciated by business people.

The housekeeping and technical amendments contained in Bill C-102 ensure that competitiveness will be increased. They will also ensure that the exemptions for Canadian travellers will be in line with those of our major trading partners. The amendments will ensure that related and consequential amendments will be made to all acts that impinge upon the Customs Act and the customs tariff.

These amendments are needed and desirable. I join with my colleagues in saying that the amendments are excellent. Therefore I ask members to ensure that Bill C-102 receives swift passage.