Bill Casey

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I would say that if we go into agreements which give us benefits, and certainly these agreements have given us great benefits, we sign the agreements. We agree to adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreements. We cannot be sore losers if it is proven that we have contravened the agreements. This happened in the previous ruling on this very issue.

I am not questioning the importance of the magazine industry in Canada or the importance of the cultural issue aspect of this, but we have signed an agreement. We have agreed to the terms and conditions. We would hold them to the terms and conditions of an agreement and we do it every day in tribunals.

What really concerns me is the obvious apprehension on the government side that it has developed a bill that is going to cause a lot of retaliation. We can see it in the government's words and actions. When the government said it was going to delay the implementation of the bill, when it said it was sending deputy ministers to the U.S. to avert a trade war, this screamed to me that we have a problem. Jobs in Cumberland—Colchester are at risk. The government had better make sure that it is right and that we are complying with the terms and conditions and that retaliation will not happen.

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

Madam Speaker, the Americans are using the tools entrenched in the agreements that we all agreed to. If we are wrong, we are wrong and we have been proven wrong before. I am not saying we are wrong, but I question that we are right.

I was encouraged this morning by the Minister of Canadian Heritage who spoke on this issue. She acknowledged that this was a cultural issue involved with a business agreement. If I remember correctly she said that they were trying to organize a group of countries to start dealing with cultural issues and establish cultural agreements.

That is the problem here. We have a cultural issue in a business agreement, in a business arrangement. We do not have a cultural agreement. If we want a cultural agreement, we should negotiate one. The minister acknowledged and admitted this morning that we have not done that and we do not have one.

With that in mind, we should remember that this is a business agreement and we all have to live up to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, that is a reason.

The things that make me nervous on the other hand are that the Prime Minister did not come out and say, “We can defend this in front of the World Trade Organization. We are right on this. We can stand firm”. He said, “We think we can justify it in front of the WTO”. That does not instil confidence in me.

It does not instil confidence in me that today two top bureaucrats were dispatched to Washington to avert a trade war. Two deputy ministers, an almost unheard of precedent, are there now trying to divert an action by the U.S. that has not even been started yet.

I do not know whether this has ever happened before. It certainly does not do a thing to instil confidence in me. In my riding of Cumberland—Colchester, we cannot afford to play games with jobs in the steel industry, the forestry industry, the plastics industry and the textiles industry. We cannot afford to be testing it and saying we think we can justify it. It just is not good enough.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-55, the foreign publishers advertising services act. It is important for Canada that we protect our publishing industry especially in light of the things that are happening in the industry now with global communications and especially the Internet. Pressure will be enormous on all countries to protect their cultures especially from the United States which is the leader in the Internet revolution.

We agree that the Canadian magazine industry needs to be enhanced and encouraged. On the other hand, we are a trading nation. If we restrict other countries from trading in Canada under the terms of our trade agreements then we must expect the retaliation which is now threatened.

There is a fundamental difference in the way the Americans look at this situation and the way we in Canada look at it. In the U.S. this is just a business deal. It is just part of doing business. In Canada it is a cultural issue. Unfortunately our trade agreements are trade, not cultural. There is a great debate now in Canada on whether the Americans can retaliate against many of our industries. I am not at all convinced that they cannot retaliate against us under the terms and conditions of our trade agreements which we did sign and should comply with. My support for this bill will depend on the assurance of the minister that our industries will be protected. So far I am not at all convinced of that situation.

In my riding we have steel plants, plastics plants, forestry industries and textile factories, all targeted industries. A trade war is not appealing to me or the people of my riding which is an area of high unemployment where it is tough to generate new jobs and create employment. Even though the government has assured us there are protections under the terms and conditions of the agreements, the delays in action by the government send a completely different signal to me and certainly shakes my confidence.

I agree that we should have a negotiated settlement prior to the implementation of this bill so we can avoid any of these trade wars that have been discussed. Canada has responded to other complaints from the Americans and we have had to adjust our trade tariff codes, our postal rates, et cetera.

There is no argument about Canadian culture that it must be protected, but if we sign trade agreements we must comply with those terms. In this case interpretations differ depending on who we listen to. While we must stand up for Canadian culture we must again face the terms and conditions of our agreements. To Americans this is a business deal, to Canadians it is a cultural sovereignty issue.

The minister stood here today and called the Americans bullies. I take exception to that. I do not think they are bullies. I think they are using the tools entrenched in the agreement that we agreed to at the time we signed it. agreement.

In October 1997 the World Trade Organization said Canada was wrong. It told us to change our excise tax and tariffs. Canada was given until October 1998 to get our policy in line with the general agreement on services or face retaliation. We are not always right and in this case we were wrong.

In 1995 the government introduced the original Bill C-103 which did not pass the test. Now we are trying it again with Bill C-55 and there is controversy over whether it will be subjected to the same retaliation and action by the U.S. The U.S. ambassador has threatened a billion dollars in trade retaliation in textiles, steel, plastics and wood.

The assurances by the minister are not very convincing. While she says Canada is safe in this issue, she has already announced a delay in the implementation of the bill in her statements and her officials are marching off to Washington to renegotiate this deal in advance. That makes me very nervous.

The Prime Minister was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen as saying: “We think we can justify it in front of the World Trade Organization”. That does not instil much confidence in me. When he says “we think we can justify it” I think maybe our jobs in steel, textiles, forestry and plastics are safe. It hits home in Cumberland—Colchester because all those industries are represented in my riding and are major employers.

Cherubini Steel is a brand new company but is projected to deliver 90% of its products to the United States. Will it ever get started if this happens? Stanfield's clothing, a brand name known all over the world, has been in business for 100 years.

Many mills have a tradition of shipping their wood products to the United States. Poly Cello Plastics, Ropak Can-Am and Canadian Polymer, all industries in the plastics business, would ship many of their products to the United States. Does the Prime Minister's statement “we think we can justify it” give them confidence? I do not think so. I would not want my job depending on the statement “we think we can justify it”. It is just not good enough.

The Conservatives have been consistent in support of the Canadian magazine industry. We even supported it at second reading of this bill. But my vote will depend on the confidence in the minister, the resulting actions in the next few days and the results of those negotiations in the U.S.

There is another thing that does not instil a whole lot of confidence in me. An article in today's National Post which says that top bureaucrats were dispatched to D.C. to avert a trade war. We have not even passed the bill and we are trying to avert a trade war.

Another statement by the minister of international trade is “We are willing to entertain various options that both protect our mission statement but also address the American concerns. I think we should be doing this”. This does not instil confidence in me. It certainly does not instil confidence in industries in the targeted areas or their employees.

We are not playing games here. This is a billion dollars worth of business. By saying we think we can justify it in front of the World Trade Organization is just not enough.

Again, my support for this bill will ultimately depend on the confidence and the assurances of the minister and the Prime Minister. So far, neither of them has given me the confidence to vote yes on this bill. I am not saying that I will vote no, but so far there has been nothing to convince me to vote yes.

I resent the attitude of the government. The insinuation is that anybody who questions or opposes this is not a supporter of the Canadian magazine industry or is not a supporter of Canadian culture. That is not true. We are talking about a bill. We are not talking about an industry. If we vote against the bill, we are not voting against an industry. We are not voting against Canadian culture. We are voting against a bill which we think was drafted improperly and will result in retaliation.

It is obvious that the government is apprehensive about its position on this just by its actions and concerns. Based on previous rulings against Canada in the World Trade Organization, comments by the Prime Minister that we think we can justify it are not enough.

Regarding any actions by the minister of heritage, again Madam Speaker, I ask you, would you want your job depending on someone saying “we think we can justify it”?

[Swissair Flight 111, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that brings up a couple of other questions we should think about.

If there are a series of crashes, what happens to the budgets of the RCMP, the military and the coast guard? If we are not asking the other parties to pay, will the government assure the coast guard, the military and the RCMP that their budgets will not suffer as a result of this crash? Will the government also treat it like the Saguenay flood or the Quebec ice storm and provide the funding for these operations so their services are not compromised?

[Swissair Flight 111, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

The cost of the Swissair 111 investigation has now reached $62 million and is rising. The costs are totally absorbed by the coast guard, the RCMP and the military. As a result, the operations for the RCMP, the military and the coast guard are being reduced. Also they have been denied new equipment because of this, they are told. It has not affected the construction of the Prime Minister's private driveway.

Is the government asking the manufacturers of the aircraft, the airline and the other governments involved to help cover these costs?

[Holidays Act, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary following a question I posed back in November with respect to a shortage of aviation inspectors.

My question was generated by a report put out by Price Waterhouse, a very well respected consultant in Canada. In the study it prepared it found that as the government moves from being a hands-on regulator to more or less a monitor and as we go through the deregulation process in the aviation industry there is a significant and concerning shortage of aviation inspectors to inspect aircraft and aviation facilities.

The study says that the growing wage gap between the private sector and the department means that the department must either choose between a shortage of inspectors or lower the qualifications. This is no time to lower qualifications for inspectors. It cites certain provinces in Canada that have inspector shortages in their areas of up to 20%. It puts a number on it and says there are 80 vacancies for inspector jobs in Canada.

My question is in the interest of ensuring that aviation safety is addressed on an ongoing basis. I feel it is, but I want to make sure in this circumstance and for this case that the minister is taking steps to ensure there is an adequate number of aviation inspectors and that they have adequate training to do the job.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, my question is for the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Transport. It is further to a question that I asked in the House to which the minister responded that the province of Nova of Scotia and the province of New Brunswick, in particular, did not violate an agreement.

Since that time, through the access to information program, we have become aware of another letter in which the minister said to the province of New Brunswick that it could charge tolls on this federally funded highway under two conditions. The first condition was that the amount of the federal contribution would still have to be cost shared with the province on a 50:50 basis. The second condition was that any revenue from the tolls would be an additional source of funds to be dedicated solely to the project in question.

I sent to the parliamentary secretary a quote from Hansard wherein the minister of finance for New Brunswick said “We had always made it clear that the provincial money we invested in these sections of road would be recovered”. That totally contradicts the minister's letter which says that the province must maintain its cost share ratio of 50:50 on this highway. There is a contradiction. The province has totally contradicted the words of the federal minister.

With respect to the second condition, the minister said that any revenue from the tolls must be totally dedicated to the project in question. Again I sent to the parliamentary secretary a newspaper article which quoted the premier of the province of New Brunswick as saying “Yes, there is some money coming back and it will be applied to health care”. They used the figure of $321 million. Again the federal minister said that all the revenue from the highway must go to the project. The province now says it is going to health care or general revenues or whatever.

I ask the parliamentary secretary to address this letter and the absolutely unambiguous statements and conditions that the minister applied to the province of New Brunswick if it was going to charge tolls on a federally funded highway: that is, that the province must maintain its share, which it has not, and that the province must dedicate all the revenue to that specific project, which it has not.

[Privilege, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege today with regard to a completely different event than my previous question of privilege the other day.

As hon. members will know, a breach of privilege occurs if someone interferes or tries to influence a member of parliament during the course of his duties.

On December 7, the member for Kenora—Rainy River did exactly that when in the House he said that if his intention was to intimate me, and I quote from Hansard , “I can assure you that he would not be here today”.

That is me he is talking about. I do not know if that means he is going to break my legs or what he means to do, but his sense is that I am not going to be here today.

[Highways, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to leave for the Christmas period, I would like the Prime Minister and his cabinet to think about the voters in Atlantic Canada.

Staring on January 4 thousands of people every day for 30 years will start paying tolls on a highway they know is already paid for. Starting on January 4 thousands of voters every day for 30 years will be reminded that cabinet looked the other way and allowed this to happen.

The auditor general in his recent report said the Department of Transport did not use the powers entrenched in the agreement to enforce the terms and conditions of that agreement. I am now making one last effort to encourage the cabinet to do what the auditor general said, follow the auditor general's directions, and make the province of New Brunswick honour the terms and conditions of the agreement which it signed.