Sheila Copps

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

Mr. Speaker, what I proposed to Ms. Beaudoin was that she participate with Canada in the discussions. I invited her to take part in the international network, and she refused. I invited her again last week and she again refused.

Why did she refuse? Because she does not want to be part of the Canadian delegation. If she does decide to participate someday, she will be the most welcome of all the provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the merits of what we have done together, we can see that, in parliament, the policy on copyright was supported by the Bloc, the policy on the Parks Canada Agency was supported by the Bloc, the policy on the Saguenay marine park was supported by the Bloc, the politic on the sound recording surcharge was supported by the Bloc, the supplementary assistance program for the publishing industry was supported by the Bloc. And today the periodical protection legislation was again supported by the Bloc. I thank them for their co-operation.

[Cultural Diversity, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have a policy on sound recordings that the Bloc supports. We have a copyright act the Bloc Quebecois supports. We have final debate today on Bill C-55 in order to protect Canadian publications, with the support of the Bloc.

Therefore, our action promotes the growth of cultural diversity in Canada, supported by the Bloc.

[Cultural Diversity, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we continue to work together. It is also important internationally that there respect for a nation's sovereignty.

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

—and of the whole world.

I understand why businesses are concerned. After all, the proposed retaliation of $3 billion is a reflection of what I would only characterize as the reaction of the schoolyard bully.

The cultural stakes are huge but the economic stakes in no way reflect that figure. No American will ever lose a job as a result of this measure. Not a single American will lose a job as a result of this measure.

I repeat, not a single American will lose his job because of this bill. Not one. Yet American trade representatives are getting ready to put Canadian jobs at risk with their policies.

The United States must surely appreciate that no democratically elected country could allow itself to be blackmailed into submission. The disagreement over magazines is in fact a reflection of a larger challenge. While acting to safeguard our culture through this measure, we are also determined to pursue a new set of international trade rules that respect culture.

Culture is not a commodity like other commodities. We need to come to a global agreement that recognizes the unique role cultural diversity must play in the state of nations. It will not be easy but Canada can and will play a leadership role in pushing for new rules on which to seek world respect for cultural diversity.

The point of all our efforts is simple. It is to guarantee that in the global world we continue to have shelf space for our own stories. Bill C-55 is about acting in support of cultural sovereignty.

Bill C-55 embodies the cultural sovereignty we are claiming as a country.

It is about acting on behalf of Canada. It is about standing up for our children. It is about ensuring that there will be an exciting array of Canadian magazines for our grandchildren to read. It is about guaranteeing that no foreign conglomerate, from no matter how powerful a nation, can get away with dumping product on to the Canadian marketplace.

I am counting on parliament to pass the legislation despite the threats. Parliament always has and always will stand up for Canada.

In closing I would like to quote a citizen of the world who really put the message in a way that I think everyone will understand and appreciate:

I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the culture of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.

That message came from Mahatma Ghandi. That message is as relevant in the House today as it ever was.

The legislation is about ensuring that in the world of nations there is space for every nation and there is room for every nation. That is what the legislation will guarantee and protect.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Rimouski—Mitis could not be here today, but I know she has given the matter careful consideration. I simply wanted to add her voice to that of all the other political parties, the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberal Party.

What counts is that, when we look at the policies of all the governments since Confederation, establishing structures to protect our culture is not a partisan thing.

Successive governments have understood the delicate balance needed to build a nation. Conservative governments and Liberal governments, supported by members of the opposition, have historically and continue to understand that as a nation we reserve the right to protect our culture. That has been well understood by parties which recognize that when we share the world's longest undefended border with the most powerful nation in the world, when most of us live only 100 kilometres from that border, when most of us share the love of the movies and magazines that come across that border, the challenges those things represent for our children must be balanced in law.

The average Canadian child will spend more time watching television than they do in a classroom, an average of 23 hours a week. Part of the role of government is to make sure that when they are watching television, when they are reading books, when they are perusing magazines, when they are experiencing films, they have choices that include the choices of their own country. That is what this legislation is all about.

Canada has played by the rules. We ensure that the legislation protects the interests of all magazines that are currently publishing legally in Canada.

Over and over again we have shown our willingness to listen. Over and over again we have demonstrated friendship with our American neighbours, but we maintain respect for our cultural sovereignty. The approach we have taken to this bill is fair. Canadians appreciate and understand fairness.

Almost all political parties have expressed support for this bill because they understand that for us to survive as a nation we need to have national leadership in areas of cultural diversity and cultural respect.

The support of those who work in the community, in every single magazine organization across the country, those who are at the front end of delivering Canadian content, support and understand why we have taken these measures.

For more than 100 years successive governments of different political stripes have ensured that policies are in place to respect diversity of expression. We need Canadian ideas, Canadian information and a Canadian point of view.

These policies have been balanced to create a market for American cultural products that is the most open market in the world.

The government spends an enormous amount of time on this matter. I think in this House alone we have had more than 50 people who have risen to speak to this matter.

We considered the legal, the cultural and the trade aspects of the issue. We weighed a host of possibilities. We thought long and hard about the cost of taking action and the greater cost of doing nothing.

What cabinet approved was a viable solution to meet the needs of Canadians to defend our culture and to meet the desire of Canadians to respect international law and to fulfil our international trade obligations.

To those opposite who are wringing their hands, saying “Do something else”, where are the options that they can provide? In reality, do something else means do nothing. Quite frankly, doing nothing is not an option and has never been an option.

Successive governments of different political stripes have always acted when Canada's cultural identity is at stake. Our cultural wealth and diversity is not an accident of the marketplace. It is not simply an issue of consumers. It is the result of a deliberate commitment to provide a healthy public space for our own voices.

There is also a larger purpose. Culture is a reflection of our society. It is our window to the world. It is also a reflection of our soul and the way we see ourselves as citizens of the world.

Canadians value our cultural sovereignty and will not allow any other country to tell us what legislation we can or cannot pass. That would be abdicating our rights as a sovereign nation.

Then there are those critics who say “This is no big deal. There really is no risk”. Imagine if the roles were reversed. What if over 80% of the magazines on American newsstands were Canadian? What if Canada said “That is not good enough. We want it all”. They would scream blue murder from Waikiki to Wall Street to Washington.

The United States has a huge cultural presence in our lives. That is a fact. No matter how challenging, Canadians will continue to carve out our space for the diversity of Canadian stories and the reflection of our culture. That too is a fact of life.

To use an analogy that I think the Americans will understand, let us reflect on Borg in Star Trek trying to turn everyone in the universe into one grand mass, one huge brain, one completely dominant culture. The Borg says “Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated”. I am here to tell members that resistance is not futile and that Canadian cultural diversity will not be assimilated.

Then there are those who say we are just against American culture. That is plain ridiculous. We fully appreciate the many wonders of American culture. We watch TV shows. We go to Hollywood movies. We read American magazines. All we want to ensure is that there is room for Canadian voices in Canada and around the new globalized world.

It is okay for Canada. It is okay for the United States. We expect the United States to act in its own interest, but it is equally okay for us to act in our interest.

I would like to come back to an important point. Canada is, and continues to be, the world's most open country when it comes to foreign cultures. Some people are concerned that the government wants to ban American magazines. That is not the case. We simply wish to stop the American practice of dumping and siphoning off Canadian advertising revenues.

One party opposite raises the issue of free speech. I agree. The legislation is about free speech and freedom of expression. It is about Canadians having the choice to speak to each other through Canadian periodicals. It is about ensuring a magazine industry which allows for freedom of Canadian expression. It is about making sure that hundreds of scholarly magazines, religious magazines, farm magazines and economic magazines do not disappear. It is about ensuring the survival of magazines full of Canadian commentary, editorial slants and letters to the editor. In short, Canadian content.

Certain justice loving Canadians have said that Bill C-55 could do enormous harm to Canadian advertisers. The truth is that Canadian advertisers will continue to do business in an environment that is almost the same. In this regard, the bill changes nothing.

Certain Canadians who are not opposed to the bill in principle are worried about its possible repercussions and cost. They feel that we should not step in to help the Canadian periodical industry for fear of raising American ire against too many other Canadian industries.

I want to repeat it in English because I think a member opposite made reference to it. Some people say we should do nothing because the stakes we are facing in other industries, and in particular the steel industry, are higher. To do nothing would be to lie down to the schoolyard bully. To do nothing would set the stage for a regime where no international laws are respected. To do nothing would say that might means right. To do something firms the right of the steel industry, the right of the plastics industry, the right of the agricultural industry to play by fair international rules.

What we understand and respect is fairness. We believe in the final analysis that our American friends will also respect that fairness.

If we withdrew every time Americans got annoyed, we would be the laughing stock of the United States—

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

moved that Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, only a few moments ago in this House we prayed for guidance in our deliberations. There is probably no better place where that guidance should be applied than in the government's law on magazine publications.

This is a critical decision for future generations and the vote which we will undertake in a couple of days will really chart a path for the future of the country.

In order to carry out our responsibility to the Canadian public, the Government of Canada introduced a law on advertising services provided by foreign periodical publishers.

What members of the House will be voting on is not about bound sheets of papers. It is not about a business interest. It is about the capacity of future generations of Canadians to have a chance to tell their stories.

We will be voting on an important expression of our culture and how we define ourselves as Canadians going proudly into the 21st century.

Some would have us believe that our magazines, our music, our films, our books are just about making money. They are wrong. They are about culture. Magazines, books, movies are vehicles for transmitting the intangibles that are the essence of a civilization: ideas, values, perspectives and the ability to see and celebrate our own experience and the experience of others.

Let me be very clear. Bill C-55 is not about building walls around Canada. Bill C-55 is not about keeping out the ideas and the expressions of other nations. Bill C-55 does not in any way limit access to American magazines or the access that Canadians have to reading those magazines. What is at issue is not newsstand space for foreign magazines. What is at issue is ensuring that Canadians continue to have access to stories that reflect their country and that they continue to have access to a genuine Canadian lifeline.

This legislation will allow future generations to have a choice. This is about choices, including Canadian choices, a choice of reading articles that reflect our culture and who we are. Canadians not only have the right to protect our cultural identity, we have the duty to do so.

In these past months some have alleged that we have not played by the rules. Nothing could be further from the truth. In August of last year Canada complied completely with all aspects of the World Trade Organization ruling on Canadian periodicals. We acted to repeal Tariff Code 9958. We moved to amend the Excise Tax Act. We altered the administration of the postal subsidy and we lowered the postal rate for foreign magazines.

Bill C-55 complies with the letter and the spirit of all our international obligations, our Canadian rights, and, more importantly still, our commitments to the future of our own country.

Bill C-55 is a well considered measure intended to meet a very difficult challenge. It focuses on a very specific commercial activity. It contains absolutely up to date provisions on the application of the law. In fact, over 100 laws contain similar provisions.

A measure of the balance of Bill C-55 is reflected in the fact that it has received the support of four of the five parties in the House.

I know that my colleague Suzanne Tremblay, who gave a lot of consideration to—

[Division No. 329, March 8th, 1999]

moved that the bill be concurred.

[Publishing Industry, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore once again and I am speaking in a temperate fashion because I want to measure my words carefully. The member is making certain claims, all of which are completely false. The fact is the legislation made a provision for grandfathering precisely because magazines that are currently publishing here should not have any change to their operation.

[Publishing Industry, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first I thank the hon. critic from the Reform Party who last week came out in support of the government's policy on official languages. That was very much respected.

I also want to say that if the member has an opportunity to review the legislation he will note that any magazine that is currently publishing is not touched by the legislation.