House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was environment.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Hamilton East (Ontario)

Won her last election, in 2000, with 53% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Culture June 10th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am frankly surprised that the NDP is not recognizing that for the first time in any international agreement the United States has agreed to accept the concept of Canadian content.

It has never happened before in any international agreement. It is our belief that this should be a portent of future negotiations at places like the World Trade Organization. We recognize, as does the American government for the first time, that culture is unique and quite different from other commodities.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act June 9th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Senate for the work it has done. Many things have been said in the last number of days about the Senate and its work or lack thereof. However I have to say that here was one very strong case of how the Senate took its responsibility very seriously, dealt in a very conscientious fashion with a piece of legislation and assisted ably in helping Canada achieve an historic agreement.

For the first time in its dealings with any nation, the United States has finally accepted the right of Canadian content in Canadian cultural industry.

I firmly believe that the concurrent work of the Senate while the negotiations were going on actually helped to show the Americans that we were serious about the legislation and that we were serious that any legislation would include Canadian content. That is the crux of this debate.

I congratulate the Senate on its very serious work on a piece of legislation which will prove in the long term to be an historic piece of legislation, not just for Canada but for our approach in future international trade negotiations.

Let us look at where we were two years ago and where we are today. Two years ago Canada lost a decision by the World Trade Organization. We did not like it. Most of us thought it was an unfair ruling, but it was a final ruling with no right of appeal. There was no way around it, many people thought.

What did that ruling give the United States? It gave the United States 100% access to our magazine advertising market. It gave the United States the whole enchilada. It had everything. It had a ruling which would have entitled it to crush the Canadian magazine industry and decimate Canadian magazines. Those are the facts. The United States won and we were left with nothing.

Where are we today as a result of these amendments? The United States will have access to up to 18% of the advertising market, not the 100% it got from the WTO ruling, not the 100% it originally insisted it was entitled to, not 90%, not 80%, not 50% but 18%, and that only after a three year transition period.

We judge a tree by its fruit. We started from zero following the decision of the World Trade Organization. We built this bill and this agreement piece by piece. This is what the critics must understand.

They are up in arms, saying that we have shortchanged Canadian periodicals and even culture, whereas the very opposite is true.

Following the decision by the World Trade Organization, we went on from zero to recover 82% of the lost ground. To all those who predicted that we would end up in a trade war with the United States, with all due respect, I am proud to say that they were mistaken.

The road was long and exhausting. I want especially to congratulate the Senate on its work. It gave us the push we needed to get an agreement that recognized, for the first time, Canadian content in a bill that will not be contested by the Americans.

We reached a good agreement for Canada. We have before us a bill that, with the amendments, protects the interests of all Canadians. We have achieved an unprecedented agreement with the Americans on Canadian content.

Let us make no mistake about it. This agreement and this legislation will be at the forefront of future international agreements which recognize culture and cultural content as legitimate aspirations of any nation.

We got written agreement from the United States that it will not appeal this legislation to a national or international organization. We demanded that publishers wanting to exceed the 18% limit on advertising revenues publish a magazine with mostly Canadian content.

What is more, should some Canadian magazines suffer we have the capacity and the will to help, and we shall do so. Yes, it will cost something but let us imagine the alternative. Let us imagine if we had let the WTO ruling stand with no effort to find a solution. The United States would have had everything and Canada would have been left with nothing. Now we have claimed back or clawed back 82% of what we had before we were deep-sixed by the WTO ruling.

Naturally, the matter has been in the wings a long time. Issues have sometimes heated up between the two countries, but Canada has done a good deal.

We must have Canadian periodicals that speak to us of our history and of our values, that bring together Canada's four corners and that speak of Canadian issues of interest to Canadians.

Was it all worth it? Absolutely, because culture is the soul of a nation. A country does not abandon its cultural identity simply because it has lost a case before the WTO. A country does not abandon its cultural identity because its adversary is 10 times more powerful.

We like Americans but we are not Americans. We are friends with the United States but we are different and we want to keep that difference. We like American movies and we like Hollywood, but we want to have our own cultural diversity.

We share North American values but we also have unique Canadian values. We want to nurture the instruments that allow Canadians to express our values, to speak to each other, to speak to our children, to learn about our past, to engage in the present, and to build Canada's future.

We want to be able to share our ideas, our stories and our values with the rest of the world. This agreement with the United States and this law before the House of Commons today, with regulations and the power to guarantee Canadian stories, will allow us to do these things.

I had the privilege over the last couple of days of sharing a unique experience with colleagues from all sides of the House. Along with a member of the official opposition and two other colleagues in the House, I went to recognize two very unique sites in Canadian history. One was the beaches of Normandy, the place where the D-Day sacrifice by Canadian Armed Forces was so great, a sacrifice that guaranteed peace in our time.

From there we travelled to Belgium where we had the privilege of declaring the medical site of John McCrae, the place where the poem In Flanders Fields was written, as a Canadian national historic site. Some day someone will write about that Canadian national historic site, Flanders Fields. Some day someone will write about the recognition of D-Day, the beaches of Normandy and Juno Beach as part of our history.

As a result of these amendments which protect and enshrine the concept of Canadian content in the law and which have forced the Americans to the international table on the issue of content for the first time in history, I hope we will continue to have the opportunity to share the very important stories of our grandparents with our children.

I believe that this legislation is good legislation. I believe the support of all sides of the House will help us to move the benchmark forward and be the first country in the world which has brought the Americans to the table on the question of content and won. I am very proud of this legislation and I hope and believe that all members of the House will see the benefit and value of Bill C-55 in its amended form.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act June 9th, 1999

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.

Quebec's Fête Nationale June 9th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I find that, as usual, the Bloc Quebecois is out to stir up a fuss.

The separatists ought to set a better example. This morning I visited the Quebec Department of Culture web page. The cultural events calendar of thematic days, weeks and months gives no mention of Saint-Jean-Baptiste, there is nothing for June 24.

Harpsichord Day is there, but not Saint-Jean-Baptiste, while our calendar at least had Saint-Jean-Baptiste. Next year we will also add la fête nationale du Québec.

Publishing Industry June 9th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the regulations require that the content be original to the magazine anywhere in the world.

Publishing Industry June 9th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, prior to the tabling of the legislation, there was no requirement for Canadian content, so obviously the Canadian content requirements are new.

Canadian Heritage June 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, first of all, this is not the website of Heritage Canada. Second, it is a bilingual site.

What I find pitiful is to see the Bloc Quebecois shedding big crocodile tears for francophones outside Quebec while, when the time comes for a concrete gesture in support of French Canadians, the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois want nothing to do with francophones outside Quebec. That is pretty pitiful during the Année de la Francophonie canadienne.

Francophonie June 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the most pitiful thing about the Bloc Quebecois is that it claims to support the French fact in Canada, but that same Bloc Quebecois found nothing to say when the Government of Quebec refused to recognize this year as the Year of the Francophonie in Canada.

For people who claim to be the defenders of the francophonie in Canada their track record with respect to the French fact in this country is pathetic, and they owe an apology to French Canadians from Nova Scotia to British Columbia.

Francophonie June 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I cannot see why the Bloc Quebecois would be afraid of francophiles.

Points Of Order June 2nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, of course the member will have a chance to review the regulations when they are available.

I trust that he takes the word of the hon. member that when an agreement is signed and the agreement specifies that there are no rewrites in terms of the regulations, the member will have a chance to review those regulations.