Simon de Jong

[Young Offenders Act, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise again the question I had raised some months ago

concerning the government's response to the task force report on the Canadian magazine industry. The task force report, I believe, was made public in March though I understand the government was aware of the major recommendations in January.

It has now been approximately five months since the government was aware of the task force report recommendations and some decisions are needed.

The task force made some very excellent recommendations but there was one recommendation that concerned me and I think concerns all those Canadians who would like to maintain our cultural identity.

The task force recommended that magazines that otherwise would be subject to the proposed tax as of the date of this report should be exempt at the number of issues per annum that were distributed in Canada in the year preceding this report. In other words, this means the task force was recommending that Sports Illustrated which had started a split run be allowed to continue to print a Canadian edition. There is quite a bit of opposition to this and it is about time the government made some decision on this.

Split runs are American magazines which incur all of their costs in terms of writing, editorial content and so forth in the United States and then, in essence, dump their product on the Canadian market. The law now prohibits Canadian advertisers from deducting their advertising costs in those magazines. Therefore, it is an effective barrier in attempting to maintain the viability of the Canadian magazine industry.

So far we have had no commitments from the government regarding split runs and the postal subsidy which was also part of the recommendation of the task force. To consider allowing Sports Illustrated to continue what I would call its illegal practices, even when it initiated the split run it claimed it got around Canadian law by not physically shipping its contents across the border but rather electronically sending its contents to a Canadian printing house. For all intents and purposes, I still cannot see how this is legal and has been allowed under the law.

It is about time that the government stood up to this type of pressure particularly from Time-Warner and its magazines. Already Reader's Digest is deemed Canadian for the postal subsidy. I understand for example that the revenue from Time magazine, the Canadian edition, is greater than the entire profits of the Canadian magazine industry.

As well there is an urgency in this matter. As things stand now we have no law in place to prevent more split run editions. If a number of American magazines, let us say Newsweek , wants to set up a split run and do exactly the same as Sports Illustrated has done, there is really no law in effect now to prevent Newsweek or any other American magazine company from carrying out and establishing another split run.

As well, why would we allow Sports Illustrated , having broken the law, to be rewarded as opposed to any others which attempt to do a split run and which will be forced to cease and desist? It makes no sense at all.

It is time the government stood up for Canadian cultural industries and institutions. It is time it tested the cultural exemption under the free trade agreement. It is time the government accepted the report that rejected the one recommendation that would exempt Sports Illustrated .

It is time the government acted because the magazine industry in this country is in a terrible financial situation. The uncertainty the lack of action and determination by the government is creating is hurting the industry even more.

I hope the government in its response today will be able to announce to the House and to Canadians that indeed the government has made a decision, it will accept the recommendations of the report with the one exception that it will not allow Sports Illustrated to continue as a split run edition.

I look forward to the reply.

[Information Highway, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry.

There is a growing concern that the information highway will be controlled by a few monopoly companies. I would like to ask the minister has the government defined what is in the public interest as it concerns the information highway? How should that public interest be implemented, protected and enforced?

[Bosnia, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the children of Bosnia are the greatest victims of the daily carnage occurring in that part of the world. Thousands of children have been deprived of their childhood. They have seen their fathers murdered and their mothers raped. They have had their homes burned and all too often been uprooted as their village has been "ethnically cleansed".

The deliberate shelling of schools, hospitals and other non-military targets has killed and permanently disabled many children of Bosnia. All the children of Bosnia will carry the psychological scars for many years to come.

Do those who have unleashed this madness in the name of some twisted notion of a greater nation not realize that the welfare and happiness of children is the future of their nation? Do they not realize that inflicting the suffering they have on children will only produce a sick nation whose citizens will have to live with the shame and guilt for generations to come?

I join my voice with all humanity in imploring, hoping and praying that the carnage will stop.

[Foreign Affairs, April 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity of participating in this debate. I also thank the government, the Official Opposition and the Reform Party for allowing us to participate in this most important debate.

Earlier today I spoke to a constituent, a mother whose son had just returned from serving in the former Yugoslavia. Her major point to me as her son related his experience to her was that we are no longer capable of playing a peacekeeper role. When the major parties are not in acceptance of our position and do not abide by ceasefires then we cannot play the role of the peacekeeper.

Our forces are not equipped to play the role of the peacemaker. Yet what has been requested of NATO is to change the UN role from one of peacekeeping to one of peacemaking. It seems the Serb forces have forced the United Nations and the world community into that position.

What has been going on has been a farce. We have now reached the point where a serious decision will have to be made. I appreciate that the cabinet will be meeting after this debate and I am certain that the cabinet will take into very serious consideration all the implications that are involved.

Some suggest that this might be the opening to a new Vietnam type war. I have been in Bosnia as I have been in Croatia and I followed the events very closely over the years. I know the terrain in Bosnia is not conducive to the type of warfare that we think of. Certainly it is not like the deserts in the war in the Middle East. We remember as well the few handfuls of partisans who were able to hold down many German divisions during the second world war.

We cannot allow the rape and the killing to continue. I have been to the front and I have seen hospitals that have been attacked by scatter bombs. I have seen attacks on churches, I have seen attacks on civilians and the total disregard for innocent people, the total immorality.

As someone suggested to me, it is the devil's banquet that is going on there. We cannot tolerate it. We cannot just sit in front of our television sets and do nothing. I think air strikes have to be used.

Now the question is what happens to our Canadian forces? They are not equipped. They are out there almost as hostages. I believe what has to be done immediately is before the air strikes, the UN troops who are out there and ill-equipped to protect themselves have to be removed and moved into secure areas.

The other suggestion I would make is that under article 51 of the United Nations the state has the right to protect itself. We have a state here. We have the federation between the Croatians and the Muslim Bosnians. We have as well a co-confederation between this new state of Bosnia and Croatia. Why not lift the arms embargo and allow the Muslims and the Croatians to protect their own homes and their own cities? Surely that would make a lot of sense.

The blood of Canadian boys need not necessarily be spilled on the fields in Bosnia. Allow the Bosnian Muslims and Croats to protect their homes, to protect their villages. Use them as the ground troops, the ground forces necessary to protect the safe havens. Back them up with air power. That combination will create a level playing field.

I believe the Serbs will negotiate in good faith if there is a level playing field. They inherited the third largest or the fourth largest and most powerful army in Europe at the end of the cold war, the army of Yugoslavia. They inherited all that fire power. They are using that fire power against the Muslims and the Croats. It is not a level playing field.

The embargo on arms has helped the Serbs and has put the Croats and the Muslims at a disadvantage. Take away that disadvantage, allow a level playing field, allow the Muslim and the Croatian armies to protect their cities. Back them up with air power. In that way I believe we can be effective and we can see

an end to this conflict because it will force the Serb forces to negotiate in good faith.

I believe there are some possibilities that should be explored which might prevent a full scale blood bath. In fact it is already there. We cannot prevent it, it is already occurring. However, perhaps we can bring it to a more speedy end if we lift the embargo and back up Muslim and Croat forces with air power. I believe some good will come out of that.

[Magazine Industry, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Earlier today the task force on the Canadian magazine industry released its report and recommended that those foreign magazines already operating split runs should be exempted from the proposed excise tax.

This would mean that Sports Illustrated which knowingly broke Canadian regulations last year would be rewarded with a permanent exemption from the law.

Will the minister rise in his place today and announce that his government will totally reject this recommendation of the task force?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the House, for the opportunity of being able to speak in this House. It is a rare opportunity for some of us.

The question I am raising tonight is a question that I raised in the House on March 15. It concerns Rogers' takeover of Maclean Hunter and the virtual monopoly that Rogers Communication will have on the information highway.

Rogers Communication with this takeover will have some 43 per cent control over Canadians who are hooked into the cable system. In Ontario it is over 70 per cent.

My question to the government was to request it to either set up a special committee of Parliament or to ask the standing committee for the Department of Heritage to have special hearings, not just on Rogers' takeover but on the whole question of what is the public interest in the information highway.

I acknowledged in my question that both the CRTC and the Competition Tribunal will have to hold hearings and approve this takeover. My position is we must first define what is in the public interest in terms of the evolution of the information highway.

Mr. Rogers might be quite correct in claiming that we need large monopoly type organizations or companies in order to compete with the Americans and to take full advantage of the technologies available. If he is right then basically what he is saying is that he is a natural monopoly like telephone, like power and other utilities. If that is the case then we must look to make certain that the proper regulations are in place. This type of work, I suggest, should be done by a parliamentary committee.

I noticed later last week that the government had set up a commission under the chairmanship of Mr. David Johnston from McGill University. The discouraging part, when I read about this in the Thursday, March 17 edition of the Citizen , is that most of these hearings will be held in private and not open to the public.

I wish to underline the importance of an open public process in which all the players, including the public, can participate. I would also suggest that this is a creative way of using members of Parliament and the existing committee system. I could envisage working very closely with the departments involved, including the Department of Canadian Heritage, the bureaucrats in that department working with the committee, to work together on a co-operative basis to develop a position of what is in the public interest.

I was also somewhat encouraged by the response of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry. I believe that the parliamentary secretary left open the possibility of using members of Parliament either in a specially struck committee or in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to deal with this issue. I believe this is an issue that should be dealt with by committee and utilizing the work of the House.

Let me again underline the importance of what is happening here. Never before has a development of this magnitude, that is Rogers' takeover of MacLean Hunter, been seen in the Canadian history of cultural industries. It creates a virtual monopoly. It is a turning point in Canada's technological and cultural future. Therefore, it is essential that the public interest be defined and that this be done through a committee of the House of Commons.

[Supply, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to sincerely thank the members of the Bloc for giving me an opportunity of participating in the debate.

It is an issue that I have been following. I had the privilege of raising it the first time in the House. I think it is an important issue that affects the cultural well-being and cultural future of this country and one that deserves a full debate.

I do not quite understand how government members are putting down the Bloc for showing its interest and concern about Canadian culture. I ask the government how can it argue that federalism is the preferred system under which to protect and enhance the unique cultural make-up of Canada and Quebec's distinct culture and society in Canada as a unique whole when it is willing to sell off the country's cultural markets to the Americans?

I am more concerned about what these people are doing across the way in terms of the viability and future of Canadian culture than I am right now about the Bloc.

These are the folks who are selling them off to the United States. They are the ones who should be hanging their heads in shame. It is quite amazing that they are still in the House and willing to protect and defend a decision that the former Tories made.

We have asked about this over and over again in this House, particularly the Bloc members because they have had the opportunity of revealing some of the specific details, including who made this verbal agreement. The government keeps stonewalling. We have been pressing and asking for a full public inquiry. There are things that have occurred here that demand a full and public inquiry. Let us bring it all out in the open. Let us see what the former Tories entered into in this wicked, wicked affair.

Surely anybody who is interested in Canadian culture can smell a rat here. Why not bring it out in the open? Why not expose the rat for what it is? My basic question to the Liberals is who are they trying to protect in this? Why are they so adamant about not bringing this out into the open?

To tell the truth, I was deeply shocked-and I do not say this in a rhetorical manner but in full sincerity-when I heard what the government had approved. I really expected something much different. I had worked with the Liberals in opposition, particularly on the communications and culture committees, trying to defend Canadian culture against those Tory years of rape and plunder and total unconcern for Canadian cultural identity. We worked shoulder to shoulder when the sale of Prentice-Hall and the whole episode with Ginn occurred. We stood shoulder to shoulder in opposition to this.

Now I must say there is no difference. The same show goes on. What is going on here? Initially I was concerned that the bureaucrats had misinformed the ministers. I could understand that with a new government coming in. Although, I expected a little more of the Liberals, the natural ruling party, since they after all had some experience in government and knew how to take control over the public service to make sure that the political agenda and not the bureaucratic agenda was the one in control.

I had been assured by the parliamentary secretary and everybody not to blame the bureaucrats, the ministers knew what they were doing. Let the ministers, then, be responsible.

Again I ask why not bring it out in the open? Why not have a parliamentary inquiry? Why not get to the bottom of it? There are numerous questions that remain unanswered and that deserve answers.

As well, this may be a case study of how a large American multinational like Paramount is able to exercise its will over an area that is so important to us as a nation, our cultural identity.

We fought the free trade agreement and we fought NAFTA and we tried to ensure that there were provisions in there through which we would protect our Canadian cultural identity, unlike the Reform position of letting the market take care of everything. When the market takes care of everything it takes care of Canadian culture all right because we do not have a chance at all of being heard. The mass marketing of music, film, video and books and magazines will swamp Canadian culture and Canadian musicians and writers and publishers' ability to get in and be heard by other Canadians will totally diminish.

I hope this will be an education for the Reform Party in the years it is in Parliament where this begins to sink in, where it begins to realize that there are limits as well to where the market can flourish. The national interest precedes the notion of the free market when it comes to cultural institutions. Because once a nation loses its sense of identity, when Canadians cannot hear and see other Canadians, we have lost ourselves as a nation. That is why book publishing policy, particularly textbooks, is so essential, so important. That is why I plead with the government to please allow this to go forward as a proper inquiry.

Let us make certain if, and I underline the word if, the Ginn decision is not reversible that this will never, ever happen again. The only way of ensuring that is to put the body on the table and dissect it. Let us see who and what created the situation we find ourselves in where foreign owners of our book publishing industry now are producing most of our textbooks that we use in our schools in this country.

I understand that around a quarter per cent of all the textbooks in Canadian schools are published by Canadian publishers.

There is so much to get into. I am just filled with notes here on all the different questions to be asked. I could go on for several hours on this. We have been talking about Ginn. There are all sorts of questions about the other approval that the government made when it also approved the acquisition by Paramount of Maxwell Macmillan.

There are contradictions here. CDIC approved this. If CDIC approved this, that means it has to be treated as a direct acquisition and not as an indirect acquisition. If it is a direct acquisition, then we should be able to ask CDIC "Did you find or did you attempt to find a Canadian purchaser?" The law now states that if there is a direct acquisition, and I believe the parliamentary secretary read it: "If a non-Canadian wishes to sell an existing Canadian business independent of any other transaction, the vendor will be expected to ensure that potential Canadian investors have full and fair opportunity to purchase".

The good question is: Did the government go out and look for a potential Canadian to purchase Maxwell Macmillan before the government approved Paramount's takeover of Maxwell Macmillan?

That is one of the many questions that have to be asked and answered. Only in a full, open and public inquiry will we be able to ask these questions and try to get the answers that are needed.

Other questions have to be asked. For example, all of Paramount's operations in Canada, including its film distribution, will have to-

[Supply, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I find the question from the government side either naive or misleading. Even the minister and CDIC have admitted that they could not accept any offers because there were so many technicalities that still had not been resolved.

For the government member to now stand up and say they never received any concrete offers is ludicrous to me. That is my statement.

[Supply, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from entering into the debate between the government and the Reform member about Canadian culture, consumer choice, other than to say that we can only have consumer choice if there is something to choose from.

If multinationals occupy all of our theatres, all of the bookstores, all of the magazine racks and Canadians do not have a choice, how in the hell can one have choice? That is my question, pardon the language, to the member of the Reform Party.

In the same vein, I would like to ask the member of the government about enhancing Canadian choice and at the same time allowing the sale of both Macmillan and Ginn to Paramount which will reduce choice.

Would the government be in agreement to have a full and open investigation on this since obviously it was the former Conservative government that entered into this bad deal? Obviously there were not written agreements but verbal agreements, some say by a cabinet minister making a phone call.

There are indications that when a publisher visits Ottawa enquiring about Ginn and gets a response from Paramount there is something very odious and very fishy going on here.

Would the parliamentary secretary agree that a full and open inquiry is needed to bring the body on the table to properly look into what happened so that we and the rest of Canadians would know what exactly the former government undertook to sell out Canadian cultural interests?

[Information Highway, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

With the Rogers Communications takeover of Maclean Hunter we will have a virtual private monopoly of Canada's information highway. We know the CRTC and the competition bureau will have to approve the takeover, but surely we need first to determine what is in the long term public interest and how best this can be served.

Will the government either instruct the standing committee on heritage or strike a special committee of Parliament to develop a position that would ensure the public interest is served in the ownership and development of the information highway?