Wendy Lill

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his wonderful compliments on

Beatrice Chancy

which was indeed a work of art, one of the works of this century.

As long as I have the great unease that I have about what happened last May in the House surrounding Bill C-55, I have very little confidence that yes means yes, that a carve out means a carve out, and that a total cultural exemption means that. I need to have proof.

I did not get it today in the House from the Prime Minister so I remain a sceptic. I will remain such until it is proven otherwise, until he answers the question.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Palliser.

I am pleased to join in today's debate on the future direction of our trading relations in light of the upcoming Seattle round of talks at the World Trade Organization, and continuing initiatives of the government surrounding proposals to expand the NAFTA.

I want to talk about how our culture is threatened by trade deals and how I see better ways to deal with protecting and promoting our culture in Canada and around the world.

We have seen a dangerous trend in our cultural policies as they relate to trade in the last decade. Cultural expression is not being viewed by this government, especially by the United States, in the way it should be.

I believe that culture is something to celebrate as an expression of creativity. It is something which allows us to delight in each other. It is something which helps us to understand where we come from. It is our stories, our history, our emotions, an expression of our joys and sadness. It makes us think and it makes us wonder.

New Democrats believe that promoting culture is done by supporting and celebrating artistic achievements. We know that protecting our culture is required in supporting the individual artists, in the companies which nurture them, in their struggles to show us and the world a glimpse of their special view of the world.

Sadly we have a government which deals with culture as a trade-off of film tax breaks against steel quotas, quantifying the values of having a domestic book publishing industry against the pressures of the corporate monoliths who want to sell our trees and water. Culture is seen as a piece on the giant monopoly board of world trade by this government.

Simply remember how the government failed to hold the line on culture last spring when it came to our magazine policy. The Minister of Canadian Heritage used her best speech writers to come up with the careful words reflecting great ideas to protect and promote culture. Then the deal went behind closed doors. What we saw was the sellout of culture and a trading away of principles. The Americans got what they wanted. The principle that our culture was a commodity was entrenched. The Minister of Canadian Heritage was left with a brave face and the Minister for International Trade got a promotion.

The same dynamic is in place still around the current cabinet table. We have a Minister of Canadian Heritage touring the world to garner international support for international cultural agreements. At the same we have a new Minister for International Trade calling upon the business community to rally its support for a new FTAA, with no real protection for culture and, furthermore, a new FTAA which revives the odious concept of investor rights. We know that if the chips are down the government cares more about the corporate view of culture than about supporting our precious creators.

Let me quickly address the concept of the current so-called cultural carve-out in the NAFTA. What we have now is a sham. The NAFTA section on culture grants permission for the Americans to put any dollar value on our culture that they want and to punish us for protecting or promoting it. That is what the current agreement does. We saw that in the magazine debate. Simply put, we are allowed to protect culture as long as we remain contractually obliged to be punished for doing so.

We can pretend that culture is not a commodity, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage does that, as long as the Americans are allowed to quantify it and crush us for having it.

The government has said nothing about changing this and nothing about culture in preparation of the WTO talks. We are starting out going into Seattle and into the FTAA from a position of weakness.

I still have some hope, though, that our culture is actually quite a survivor, one which has survived almost by sheer force of will in the face of tough odds. I can see this by looking at two very special communities in my constituency, the black communities of Cherrybrooke and the Prestons. These communities have been living on the unforgiving rocky soil of Preston, dating back to the days when slaves were still sold on the Halifax piers, before most of the Scots arrived in Nova Scotia. Yet they have overcome all odds, systemic discrimination, economic deprivation and the scorn of successive governments. They have managed to maintain their unique black Canadian culture in their families, in their oral traditions and, mostly, in their churches.

Recently I attended the funeral of Rev. Donald Skier and felt the amazing music, heard the heartfelt stories and saw again how they are proud and unique, and they have survived. They are an inspiration to me of how tough a cultural people we Canadians can be.

We have an obligation as a society not only to respect cultural survival but to promote and protect our unique cultures in a real and enforceable way. As a country it is not good enough to scrape through. Our current trade policy fails to promote and protect our unique cultures.

There are voices which have been trying to address this problem and I call upon the government to listen to them. The recent report of the parliamentary committee on trade has shown that even a majority of Liberals on the committee see that the current trade regimes fail culture and we have to try another way. The recent report of the cultural industry's sectoral advisory group on international trade presented the government with options for stepping outside of the current trade agreement and developing an international trading relationship for culture, standing outside the WTO and the NAFTA. This approach has been supported by the Canadian Conference of the Arts, a leading Canadian cultural organization.

The concept of having a stand alone international trading agreement on culture has significance in Canada and I support such an approach with conditions. There is no point in our minister touring the globe and meeting with cultural policymakers unless there is an upfront commitment from Canada that we want culture to be really removed from the WTO and all regional trade agreements, not like we have now.

In closing, we need a separate international agreement on culture because the current agreements are a failure. We need a recommitment to domestic cultural policy. These things can be done by the government. The choice is there but the time is running out.

In light of the fact that we have the premier performers in the country in the House today, now is the time for the government to commit to removing culture from the WTO and regional trade agreements. Now is the time for our Prime Minister to guarantee to the artists in the country that the Canada Council and the CBC, the pillars of our cultural foundations, are not in danger of being swept away by the crush of international trade agreements. Now is the time for this to happen.

[Culture, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister who made this speech and it was the Prime Minister I was addressing.

In light of the fact that we have the premier performers of the country in the House today, can the Prime Minister guarantee them that the Canada Council and the CBC, the pillars of our cultural foundations, are not in danger of being swept away and squeezed out by the straitjacket trade agreements that we are presently party to?

[Culture, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Toronto the Prime Minister committed himself to making an independent trade agreement for culture a reality. But Canadians remember that last spring this government retreated on magazines because of our present trade agreements. Under the NAFTA we are allowed to protect culture as long as we remain obliged to be punished for doing so. Under the WTO culture is seen as a good like any other.

Is the Prime Minister now saying that Canada will push for an international cultural trade agreement that is not subject to the WTO and the NAFTA?

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member from Sydney—Victoria.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that there certainly is a need for an investigation of the fee structure in terms of transportation across the country.

I know members of the House find themselves having to make ridiculous detours through Toronto to reach another location, perhaps in the maritimes. Sometimes when flying from Calgary, one has to go through a place like Winnipeg to get to somewhere in the north. There are a lot examples of erratic and irrational detouring going on. I believe all of that has to be taken into account in terms of it being a system that will meet the needs of Canadians.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

I am pleased to speak to the question surrounding the airline industry. It concerns many people in my riding of Dartmouth and they are looking to Ottawa for leadership on this issue.

It is also a symbolic issue for Nova Scotia and Canada, a debate which shows how the Liberal Party has moved from being a proactive force in Canadian politics to being a caretaker government which equates the corporate good with the public good. It clearly shows how out of touch members opposite have become with the reality of most Canadians.

My constituents have approached me on the issue of the travel industry. It is an industry which employs many people in Dartmouth. They fear for their jobs. We have heard about the more than 25,000 direct jobs involved in Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, but I have also heard from people who make a living selling seat sales. They worry that they will have no jobs when there are no regional carriers, no national competition and no more seat sales.

A retired Air Canada worker was in my office yesterday. He is concerned about the future of his pension. He is not a direct employee, but he is scared because this process may threaten his income. Many direct employees, be they pilots, mechanics or flight attendants, have told me or my staff that they will be forced to move to keep their jobs due to the restructuring. These people are being brave, but they are worried. Consumers in Dartmouth are also worried.

Atlantic Canada has a sad history of watching our young people go down the road. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that most families in my riding have a close family member in central or western Canada. I also know that many people have moved to Dartmouth from Cape Breton, rural Newfoundland or from the Acadie to find work. Most of these peoples' families are still down home. A major force which helps to connect these families are airplanes.

Due to the former Conservative policies there is no real train service left for most people in the maritimes. The Trans-Canada highway system has been abandoned by the government and motorists now face tolls throughout my region, so that option is becoming less and less a factor as well.

What I hear people talking about over their coffee in the shop next door to my constituency office is the next seat sale to Calgary, Sydney or Gander. I am also amazed by the anger people express over the fact that it seems to cost more to fly from Halifax to St. John's than it does to fly from Toronto to London, England.

People do not talk about the relative merits of the Onex or Air Canada offers. They are not concerned about the share price. They want to be able to see their kids. They want to know they can fly to see their parents and be by their side in an emergency.

These anxieties should have been addressed by the government. It had the opportunity. The government started the ball rolling by invoking section 47 in the summertime, but there were no assurances from the minister for Dartmouth consumers. A throne speech was delivered, but again silence on this issue. There was nothing for maritimers.

The minister did say at one point that this was a matter for the private sector, a position I believe he still stands by. He has mumbled vague words about price protection, but nothing specific. This week the minister has given assurances that the company will be accommodated and that the 10% ownership rule could be changed, but no such specifics to protect consumers.

The minister will do nothing to protect consumers because he is part of a party and a government which does not believe there is a role for government in the marketplace to protect consumers. He is protecting the choices of shareholders, not stakeholders and not the public.

It is sad that we have come to this. Canada was not built this way and Canadians have never wanted it to be this way.

Halifax harbour has had a proud and vital part in the development of my country and our community.

We should always remember that its piers, its rail links and equipment did not arrive with this pretty setting. It was largely built by public money. In large part, Canada was created based on promises of a public investment in a cross-Canada rail link.

Our airline industry was also built by public money. These investments were visionary in their recognition that accessible transportation links in Canada are not a frill but a necessity.

The policy allowed for the concept of the Canadian government acting for the public good. This tradition was gutted by the Conservative government in the last decade and it has been continued by the current Liberal regime.

It is sad that the Liberal government has lost that vision of the public good. It seems that at every turn on questions of trade, culture, the environment, health protection and transportation, the government feels that the corporate good outweighs the public good. The government has said that after shareholders have finished carving up the current air carriers it will bring in a law to allow the carve up. For the rest of us, the government has said “trust us”.

I still remember the Liberals saying “trust us” for a national child care program, and the Liberals committing themselves to scrap the GST. I cannot trust them in any good conscience but I can call on them to remember the concept of public good in transport policy and do the following before bringing in any new law: Protect the maximum number of jobs and ensure that any job loss be offset through attrition and incentive packages; put in place a regulatory framework to guarantee fair prices and equal service to the consumer; explore all policy instruments at its disposal, which might include an equity partnership, to ensure that the public good is protected in a restructured airline industry; have all affected stakeholders participate in any eventual decision about the future of our air transport industry prior to it being taken; and, keep foreign investors in a small minority interest and do not allow them to obtain a controlling position in the affairs of Canada's national airlines.

This is our national tradition. That is what I believe constituents want to see.

[Ywca, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this week has been the fourth annual YWCA Week Without Violence, the campaign where all Canadians are challenged to build solutions to violence in their own communities.

As the member of parliament for Dartmouth, I know where much of the violence in my community comes from. It is from poverty, from hopelessness and from an sense of deep frustration of being left out of the good things which the country has to offer. It comes from running up against brick walls as people look for jobs, decent housing, pensions, as they stand in line at food banks. It comes from seeing government policies that do not address these issues but instead continue to maintain high levels of poverty, unemployment and economic barriers to higher education.

As we applaud the YWCA for its efforts to draw attention to violence, let us here in the House collectively address the roots of poverty with progress and with humane policies that put people first, children first and equity first.

[Petitions, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to present a petition today on behalf of many residents from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia who are very concerned about the Senate of Canada and the fact that they believe it is an undemocratic institution, is composed of unelected officials and is costly. In fact the constituents believe it is jeopardizing the role of MPs in the House of Commons and that it should be abolished.

[Persons With Disabilities, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday that the provincial government in Nova Scotia stopped a $700,000 program to improve access to public buildings for persons with disabilities. This coincides with news federally that the request for a permanent subcommittee on the status of persons with disabilities has been turned down. In light of the draconian cuts by the Nova Scotia government, we need strong federal leadership more than ever to ensure the rights of the disabled.

Without a committee to deal exclusively with the critical issues of the disabled, how can the minister assure us that these issues will not go right back to where they were before, and that is at the bottom of the heap?