Simon de Jong

[Rogers Communications, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, with the takeover of Maclean Hunter by Rogers a monopoly has been created that will have a profound effect on Canada in the years to come. Never before in the history of Canadian cultural industries has a development of this magnitude occurred.

This one company will now not only control a string of newspapers, magazines and radio stations but it will virtually control cable. One individual through his company has become the private owner of the information highway in Canada, controlling who gets on and what we will see.

This is not a great day for the free flow of information and ideas, for competition and for the Canadian entertainment industry. This deal is a turning point in Canada's technological and cultural future.

It is simply not good enough for the government to hide behind the CRTC and the competition review panel. It must develop its own position.

I urge the government to establish a parliamentary committee so that there is an open process to determine what is in the nation's interest when it comes to the ownership of our information highway.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on February 22 I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage why his government did not follow the requirements of the Investment Canada Act and in fact allowed Paramount to obtain the book publishing company's Maxwell Macmillan and Ginn Publishing.

The act prevents a non-Canadian from acquiring a Canadian controlled book publishing business.

Ginn Publishing was 51 per cent owned by the government through CDIC. In the case of a non-Canadian wishing to sell an existing Canadian business like Maxwell Macmillan the act requires that the vendor must prove that the potential Canadian investors have had a full and thorough opportunity to purchase. In both cases the government simply ignored the act.

In the case of Ginn Publishing the government claims it was obliged to sell its 51 per cent share to Paramount because of a legal obligation.

Canadians would like to see that contract made public in order to determine what that obligation is, who incurred it, when and where. Even if that obligation is there this government has renegotiated commitments made by the past Tory government, i.e. Pearson airport and the helicopter deal.

The Minister of Industry also claimed there was not "a substantial indication of interest".

Let me quote from the Toronto Star of February 22:

One of Canada's top publishers, Canada Publishing Corporation, insists that its repeated expressions of interest in the company were constantly spurned.

The firm's chairman, Ron Besse, says that the government kept promising a prospectus on Ginn but never issued one.

After the Liberals assumed power, Besse sent his lawyers to Ottawa to again explore the possibility of purchasing Ginn. The next day, he received a call from Paramount asking what he wanted.

In other words, it is Paramount that is speaking on behalf of the minister and the government and not the department.

In the case of Maxwell Macmillan this is a direct acquisition and the act requires that Canadians have a full and fair opportunity to bid.

What effort was made to find Canadian buyers? Why was the acquisition of Maxwell Macmillan not reviewed by Investment Canada as part of the larger review that the act requires because Paramount in turn has been bought by Viacom?

The government could have had significant leverage in negotiating with Paramount but again it failed to do so.

This government could have acted to prevent the book publishing business of especially high school and university texts being dominated by American controlled companies. The fact the government did not has sent shock waves through the cultural community.

As Keith Kelly, national director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts stated, " What is stopping other transactions from acquiring other Canadian cultural industries?"

One wonders if the ministers involved in this decision really knew what they were doing. Were they misinformed by their advisers? If not, is this going to be the Liberal government's policy, the same as the previous Conservative policy.

I quote from the Liberal red book:

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. Instead, the Conservative regime has deliberately undermined our national cultural institutions.

The purchase by Paramount of Maxwell Macmillan and Ginn is an undermining of our national cultural institutions.

I ask this government, is this what it means when it talks about cultural development? Is this a harbinger of things to come?

[The Budget, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the member.

What came to my mind is a quotation from Jesse Jackson, the American political activist, who stated that it was not the poor that attended the banquet of the 1970s and 1980s when we saw deficit financing by the Liberal and Conservative governments that created the inflation and tremendous increase in wealth and real estate, stocks and bonds, the over-indulgence to leverage buyouts, the huge waste of public money and private corporate money. It was not the poor that attended the banquet, but it is the poor that gets stuck with the bill.

Does the hon. member agree with Jesse Jackson's analysis and also agree that what this government is doing is presenting the poor with the bill even though the poor were not responsible for creating the deficit and the financial mess we are in.

[Book Publishing, February 22nd, 1994]

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

Last Friday the minister announced approval of the sale of Maxwell Macmillan and Ginn Publishing to Paramount Communications. This sale reverses a long established policy and, in the case of Ginn Publishing, is the first time in 25 years that a Canadian owned book publishing firm has been allowed to fall into foreign hands.

The Investment Canada Act requires that Canadians have a full and fair opportunity to bid for a foreign owned Canadian book publishing company yet Canadian publishers have informed me that CDIC thwarted all attempts by them to bid on these companies.

Could the minister explain to the House why the government did not follow its own legislation and did not actively seek Canadian investors? Also, could the minister kindly explain what the difference is between his-

[Multiculturalism, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you and the members of the House for giving me unanimous consent to put on record our position.

First of all I would like to congratulate the minister on her new responsibilities and position. I have worked closely with her in previous parliaments and I know she will do an excellent job. Her heart and mind are in the right place.

I also wish to congratulate the government for following through on its promise to have ministerial statements and new policy directions being made in the House rather than at press conferences.

It does not bode well for this Parliament when one hears the position taken by the Official Opposition party and by the second largest party in the House. The Official Opposition party is so narrowly focused in its own little world that I am afraid it misses the much larger point and the larger reality that most Canadians are living in.

The position of the Reform Party I also find most unfortunate. They suggest we should focus our efforts on the pride in being Canadians. I have always felt that my support of multiculturalism was my way of celebrating being Canadian. One of the major essences of Canada is the fact that we are not a melting pot and that we celebrate our diversity. In this diversity is our strength.

We see the ramifications of this all over the place. We see people of Ukrainian, Croatian, Chinese or Vietnamese descent opening up trade connections and possibilities with the countries of their origin. This has a tremendous economic plus for Canada.

It also is when one sees throughout history the rise of great nations, those great nations that embraced multiculturalism, different thoughts, different traditions and different ideas. This coming together made countries great. I believe if multiculturalism does its job in Canada it will help make Canada great.

I urge the minister to continue with her work and to redirect some of the things that department has been doing. It can be more successful in some areas. Certainly the concern of racism being on the rise is a legitimate concern. In hard economic times we will have that increase in racism. The department has an important task to fulfil. I extend to her and the department all of our best wishes.

[Multiculturalism, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House to be able to place on record for maybe five minutes or so the position of the New Democratic Party on the statement by the minister.

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate. There is much to say and little time in which to say it, so I will immediately get to my points.

First, as a New Democrat I abhor the fact that every year some $40 billion in public revenues goes to interest payments. I have called it a transfer of wealth to the wealthy of momentous proportions. Who gets the $40 billion every year? A certain percentage goes to average Canadians. The vast majority goes to banks, financial institutions and the very wealthy and increasingly to offshore financial institutions.

If it just went to ordinary Canadians I would have no problem. However, the fact is that it is a transfer of wealth to the very wealthy.

The CCF party that originated the NDP had this to say in its Regina manifesto, a statement made in 1933, and I quote from this: "All public debt has enormously increased and the fixed interest charges paid thereon now amount to the largest single item of so-called uncontrollable public expenditures. The CCF proposes that in future no public financing shall be permitted which facilitates the perpetuation of the parasitic interest receiving class".

No wonder NDP or CCF governments have always balanced their budgets, particularly when you look at the history of both CCF and NDP governments in Saskatchewan under Tommy Douglas, Woodrow Lloyd, Allan Blakeney and now Roy Romanow. It is a recognition that interest payments are a transfer of

wealth to the wealthy and inhibit the government from fulfilling its proper duties.

How did we get ourselves into this mess? What I am missing in this debate is a proper analysis of how we got over $500 billion in debt. In 1991 Stats Canada issued a study. Stats Canada claims that 50 per cent of that $400 billion debt at that time was due to interest payments, 44 per cent of it to decreases in revenues and only six per cent to increases in government expenditures of which social programs were only two per cent.

In other words, the increase in social spending is only 2 per cent of the national debt. The former speaker from the Reform party claims that we are living beyond our means and our social programs are too rich and that is why we are in debt, I beg to differ. Compared to other OECD countries Canada is the second lowest on what we spend of our gross domestic product on social programs, less than Holland, Italy, Ireland, Germany, Spain or Greece. We spend less as a percentage of our gross domestic product on social programs. The interest payments are 50 per cent of it. The high interest rate policies were started by a former Liberal government and continued under the former Conservative government. They escalated into momentous proportions. There was a 44 per cent loss of revenue.

There were two reasons for that as a Statistics Canada study shows. One was that the tax breaks the Liberals gave to the very rich in the 1970s were continued under the Tories. That accounted for a big hunk of the revenue loss. Then along came the free trade agreement with the United States which cost us over 400,000 jobs so we now have 400,000 people not paying income tax. The combination of high unemployment and tax loopholes to the very rich created the loss of revenue.

I underline again that it is not increases in government expenditures, particularly in social programs, that have created the debt. It is the neo-conservative agenda of the Ronald Reagans, the Margaret Thatchers, the Brian Mulroneys and the Grant Devines. No wonder under the neo-conservative governments we see increases in debt.

Mr. David Stockwell of the United States, who was the budget director of Ronald Reagan, openly admits that they deliberately increased the deficit so that it would justify later cuts in social program funding. That is the agenda of the neo-conservatives. It is working because governments now being strangled by this growing debt and deficit have to cut back. Where do they cut back? They cut back on the poor, on the sick, on the children and on the social programs. The cutbacks are going to occur on the backs of the victims. They did not create the deficit or the debt but I am afraid they will be paying the price.

What are some of the alternatives? I do not believe the proposal of the Reform Party of zero in three years makes any sense. It never tested the proposal through an independent firm or put it through an economic model like Informetrica. In fact it predicted that over 300,000 jobs would be lost if zero in three was put into effect.

The Reform platform never talked about the loss of that revenue and how it would have further added to the deficit. There was a bit of mischief in the figures that were floated around when it comes to zero in three. The economic impact of taking $40 billion out of the economy in a three-year period was never factored in.

The truth of the matter is that there is no simple, easy solution. There is no magic wand that in three years time it is going to be prosperity and happy days will be here again. It is not going to be that simple. To believe so is to be naive or to lie.

When we go back to the origins of why the deficit is there the answer to the solution lies in the Statistics Canada study. We must keep our interest rates down. Our long term interest rates are still too high. When we look at historical parallels every time the world has experienced high interest rates we have ended up in huge recessions and depressions.

Statistics Canada showed that we must also address the revenue side by getting fairness in the tax system, not by doing what some would suggest. Instead of adding further tax loads to the middle class and to the poor, how about the very, very rich. Over $140 billion in profits have gone untaxed in the last nine years, $140 billion in profits that have not yielded one cent of tax. Why are they not totally outraged in the House at the unfairness of it? This is creating the deficit that is resulting in cutbacks to the social programs and educational opportunities. That is the outrage.

Surely another area has to be employment. When Canadians are out of work Canada does not work. Things like the free trade agreement with Mexico and increasing the tax on employment, which the increase in the UI payments surely were, are counterproductive. They do not create jobs.

I am not opposed to free trade agreements. The European model makes certain there was a level playing field in terms of social programs, environmental programs and labour costs. That makes sense, but we are now being reduced to the lowest common denominator. Common sense will tell us that at least in the short term we will lose more jobs in a period of time when we cannot afford it.

Perhaps somewhere in the future we will benefit from the free trade agreements. Certainly in the immediate sense I believe every economist agrees that we will be losing jobs. That is at a period in time when we cannot afford to lose any more jobs.

Another suggestion I heard that made a lot of sense was the one of the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. The debt and the deficit in the country are killing our social programs and our public sector. That is a threat as serious to our way of life as was the last war. It is that serious. It will affect the health, welfare and future of generations of Canadians to come. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

Why not call upon Canadians of goodwill as we did in the last war when we issued victory bonds? We could have boy scouts, girl guides and every public spirited interest group trying to sell and promote these bonds so that we can buy back the debt. At least the debt would be here, not offshore.

I heard somebody earlier in the debate say that we will be spending from $40 billion to some $50 billion on interest payments this year. That is money out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. Some $28 billion of it will go offshore. That is a total drain on and waste of the energies and the lifeblood of Canadians. We cannot continue this way. It is destroying us. Let us buy back our foreign debt so that it will be paid to Canadians and benefit Canada to some degree.

In conclusion I wish to say that for myself the issue of the debt and deficit is not a right wing one. It is an issue that should concern anybody and everybody who favours the public sector playing an important role in the social well-being of our society. As Mr. David Stockwell, former budget director of Ronald Reagan, is now saying, I believe the neo-conservative deliberately created the debt to kill the public sector.

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member advocating a high speed train between Quebec City and Windsor. I am certainly a strong supporter of the high speed train form of transportation. Ecologically and economically it makes so much more sense.

My concern in part is that the members of the Bloc envisage a separation between Canada and Quebec. My question to the member is would he feel that the government would be loathe to enter into long term, capital intensive projects in Quebec that might become difficult to resolve if there were separation? It is similar to a couple going through a divorce. Do not enter into new mortgage agreements and invest a lot of capital in long term projects. Would the member not agree that perhaps the uncertainty of the future relationships between Canada and Quebec might slow down the construction of a high-speed train between Quebec City and Windsor?

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to congratulate the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster especially on the fact that he brought forward the position of the Reform Party on agriculture.

I also come from Saskatchewan where agriculture still remains our most important industry. There is a lot of coffee shop talk about what the Reform platform on agriculture really means. Today I heard more detail about the program of the Reform Party concerning agriculture.

I entirely agree with the hon. member that much of the existing systems should really be wiped out. They are a bureaucratic mess. They create more uncertainty for many of our producers in trying to figure out whether they should apply or whether they qualify. Quite often they do not know until the next crop year. It just creates a whole bunch of uncertainty.

Part of the problem with the existing system is that it really rewards the bigger producers. Approximately 75 per cent of the tax dollar that goes into agriculture goes to around 25 per cent of the producers. When the payments are based on seeded acres or on so many bushels then the bigger the one is, the more subsidy and support one receives.

We feel that to maintain a viable rural community one has to maintain the medium sized family farms. That is why our election proposals had a basic cost of production for a certain number of bushels. If one was bigger the rest was done at his or her own risk.

Does the Reform Party also encompass the notion of a cap to ensure that the tax dollar that goes to agriculture gets more evenly distributed among all of the producers?

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. I know the member well and I appreciate the work he has done in the House.

I would like to put forward a notion and wish to have the reaction of the hon. member. This House has passed legislation on environmental review assessment. Before the government undertakes any major piece of construction there is an environmental review so that we know the impact it has on the environment.

I have maintained in the past that before we present the budget or any changes in social policy that we have a human assessment review. Modern social statistics indicate that if poverty goes up and unemployment goes up, so do suicides, so does crime, so does alcohol dependency, et cetera. Therefore we could figure out the human costs. Before there are changes in social programs by a budget, should there not also be a human social assessment that would clearly lay out that if that measure produced so many more unemployed we would have so many suicides, so many more people in jail? In other words, lay out what the social costs will be before government undertakes any measure such as a budget.