Keith Martin

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It gets to the heart of the fundamental difference of opinion between the Reform Party and the government. The issue is how can Canadian culture be the best it can become.

The government believes that protection is the answer. We believe in enabling these companies, magazines and cultural entities to promote. We believe Canadian culture can compete on its own two legs without government intervention and beat other countries rather than exist in an environment where it has to build barriers. Canadian culture should look beyond, embrace a much larger population and show the best of what Canada has to offer.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the information. C.D. Howe has done a recent study on this issue and has come up with statistics. I cannot give him the exact point right now, but if he would like I could find it for him. The bottom line is that the imbalance is huge. The American creme de la creme are simply not coming up to Canada. The best and brightest of Canadians are going down south.

The number one reason has been repeated time and time again. Taxes are far too high. A working family of two in the United States after taxes earns 44% more than a Canadian couple in the same situation. When we speak to Canadian youth who have gone down south they say they would much prefer to live in Canada. They love Canada, but how can Canada compete when they are earning 44% more in the United States? It is not only money. They have opportunities to be the best they can become.

Speaking professionally from a medical point of view, the ability to practise medicine and engage in other professional opportunities in the United States is far greater because of investment in research and development.

There are some enormous opportunities for Canada to do some very innovative things. Perhaps there could be an extension on RRSPs over and beyond what we have now. RRSP moneys could be obligated to be invested into Canadian companies on Canadian shore, resulting in Canadian companies having money to be able to work and having capital to invest.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed the comments on Bill C-55.

I think the objective of members from both sides is in part the same, that nobody in this House wants to see Canadian culture be dissolved or diminished in any way. We want to see Canadian culture thrive in the best way possible.

Unfortunately I think for a long time we have had a bit of an inferiority complex with respect to Canadian culture. In travelling to the United States what strikes me very clearly in looking at the American cultural industry versus the Canadian cultural industry is that the Canadian cultural industry can compete and beat the American cultural industry in so many areas.

Nobody in the House would agree that The Simpsons has better educational value than some W5 programs or some CBC documentaries or dramas that are superbly done and are very educational and very well put together. They are far superior than the vast majority of American cultural efforts in those areas.

If there is one thing I hope we can take from the debate today it is that Canadian companies can compete well and they need to take a much more aggressive view compared to what they do south of the border. Magazines, newspapers, television and especially CBC radio do a superb job of competing south of the border. In the U.S. sometimes they can pick up CBC radio. In comparing the Canadian content of CBC radio versus American content it is like night and day. Canadian content is far superior.

When the Minister of Canadian Heritage speaks to the bill, about American companies coming to our country and diluting Canadian magazines so the content withers away, that is simply not true. Our assertion is that Canadian magazines can compete on their own. What Canadian magazines need is not protection but promotion, and not from the government. It should give the magazines and companies the ability and the tools to compete as any company rather than the situation now where we have a tax burden, rules and regulations that restrict the ability of Canadian companies, be they in the advertising industry or somewhere else, to compete against our neighbours south of the border.

The taxes and rules and regulations are the primary reasons why companies cannot compete as successfully as they should with their compatriots south of the border. I implore the ministers on the other side who have responsibility in this area to come together and work with their counterparts to lower the tax burden and eliminate the rules and regulations that exist not only north-south but east-west. That involves cabinet ministers taking a leadership role with their provincial counterparts to work together to try to remove these barriers to trade which is restricted for so long the ability of Canadian companies to function.

We oppose the bill on a number of levels, one being the issue of freedom of speech. Although we are not enamoured in any way with some big international group being able to hammer little Canada, that is not going to happen. We want to ensure that Canadian companies and magazines are going to be competing on a level playing field.

This bill violates what is very dear to the hearts of everybody and something that is a tenet of our country, the charter. I would not say dear to our hearts but the charter exists and we have to live with it. In the charter is the principle that is very dear to Canadians, section 2(b) which says everyone has the fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion, expression, including the freedom of the press and other means of communication. It would be nice if members in the House of Commons had that same freedom under the charter, but that is a subject for another day.

Bill C-55 violates that fundamental freedom and the Canadian Association of Advertisers has spoken against this by saying that it contravenes the ability of advertisers to have the freedom under the charter to compete and engage in advertising across the border. That is why since 1965, although this notion has continued to be pursued by Canadian governments, it has gone absolutely nowhere. It violates the norms of international trade rules and regulations and it has very little to do with being able to protect Canadian culture.

As I said before, since this has been happening since 1965, have we seen Canadian culture go off the map? No. Canadian culture is thriving and Canadian culture can do a lot more and be expanded in a far greater fashion if instead of using government money to promote it we enable individual companies to self-promote.

One thing we can do without using Canadian money, which is actually very interesting, is use our embassies and our foreign services in other parts of the world to promote and provide information to Canadian cultural organizations to disperse Canadian culture in other countries, particularly to our brothers south of the border. The people of the United States would benefit greatly I think from knowing what happens in Canada. Although our border is very porous, we are very close together and they are our greatest neighbours, it is surprising how little many Americans know about us and vice versa. More cultural integration, more trade of information will actually improve the bond that exists between us.

From time to time conflicts do exist, be it on fisheries, whaling or on agricultural products and forestry, and they sour our relationship with our American cousins, but there is still a great deal we can improve on. We take pride in the fact that we have so much trade with the Americans. Eighty per cent of our exports go to the states and we are America's greatest partner. But the fact remains that just scratches the surface. There is so much more that Canadian companies can do south of the border which would be of direct economic benefit to Canadians from coast to coast.

When I was in the United States in March, what struck me was the lack of knowledge on both sides of the border and also the enormous economic opportunities for Canadians south of the border. It is no mistake that last year 46,500 of our best and brightest went to the United States to work. They did not pick the bottom rung. The creme de la creme of Canadians, of our youth, went down there. They went down for many reasons. Americans recognize value for money and recognize the value of Canadians and Canadian expertise.

My colleagues have spoken about the ability and the responsibility the government has in enabling Canadians to stay within our borders by providing tax relief, the elimination of rules and regulations, the educational opportunities that Canadians require here and the investment in research and development required and necessary for us to be competitive. Having said that, there is much that Canadians can do. Canadian companies can compete and can beat American companies on so many levels.

I encourage the Minister for International Trade to work with his counterpart in foreign affairs and the Minister of Finance and members from across party lines. Our critic for international trade would be happy to provide his expert advice to the government on what we can do to improve our economic opportunities abroad.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my hon. colleague. He was pursuing a very interesting train of thought.

I would like him to address the House on what he believes will be the impact of Bill C-55 on the ability of Canadian culture to continue to exist in a fruitful and productive way in this country. That is what all of us in this House wish to have.

[Fisheries, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has given permission to the Mekah people to hunt grey whales with a .50 calibre illegal gun in our backyard. This hunt can smash the 16 year ban on whaling that has saved many species from becoming extinct.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans launch a formal complaint with Washington to stop this hunt and rescind the licences that he has given to hunt these whales?

[Foreign Fishing, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what is it about dealing with foreign fishing issues that makes our minister of oceans fold up like a deck of cards?

Whether foreigners are grabbing fish bound for Canadian waters on the west coast or engaging in a scorched earth policy on the east coast, the minister continues to put other fisheries ahead of our own.

Now we find that the minister has given the Makah natives a licence to hunt grey whale in Canada with an illegal high-powered 50 calibre weapon. In effect he is helping to destroy the international ban on whaling, licensing the use of an illegal 50 calibre weapon in Canada and putting Canadian lives in danger. Even the Humane Society is complaining.

Rather than extending a welcoming hand to Americans involved in this hunt the minister should be filing a formal protest to make sure the hunt never happens.

The minister has changed his mind four times on this hunt. Change it again, Mr. Minister. Do the right thing. Stop the hunting of grey whales.

[Health, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in October 1997 Motion No. 222 passed in this House. It dealt with constructive solutions to fix the organ donor crisis in this country which has claimed 140 lives this year so far. Since that time nothing has been done.

Will the Minister of Health stop pondering and start acting to implement Motion No. 222 before another 140 Canadians die, and will he do it before the end of this year?

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I value the comments of the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale. They are always highly intelligent and highly constructive. I would like to pose a few questions and some challenges to him as chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs because he wields significant power on the other side in the area of foreign affairs.

As he correctly and eloquently said, the problem has been inaction. Since 1890 until now we have seen inaction in the face of gross human rights abuses. There are solutions. The solutions require changing the way in which we think of conflict and changing the way in which we deal with conflict. Essentially it boils down to conflict prevention and how we identify the precursors to conflict and the actions necessary to deal with those conflicts. I suggest we start out with non-military intervention, particularly economic intervention.

Will the hon. member, in his capacity as chairman of the committee of foreign affairs, submit to the Minister of Foreign Affairs the following?

First, we should convene like-minded nations in Ottawa to develop a concerted, united effort to deal with conflict prevention in whichever forum we happen to be in, be it the United Nations, OSCE, OAU, OAS or whatever.

Will he work behind the scenes to support the private member's motion I put forth on that idea and Motion No. 477 that I put forth today to have our country present to the United Nations a proposal to indict Slobodan Milosevic for crimes against humanity and to ensure that refugees in the region around Kosovo will have free access to representatives of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and other humanitarian NGOs?

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and friend from the government, the talented chairman of the House standing committee on foreign affairs. His question is an excellent one.

He points to the first thing that I think we all desire, which is support from the United Nations. We have a larger commitment here and a larger rationale for involvement: the humanitarian reasons that many members in the House articulated earlier today.

We would like to have the UN involved, but if it is not involved, NATO certainly has the power and the ability to do that. The justification comes within the confines of international law which supports intervention in environments where gross human rights abuses are clearly taking place and in this case where genocide is occurring.

I think NATO has a responsibility. Although as the hon. member mentioned it is slightly out of its purview, NATO is largely responsible for a good segment of the security of Europe. If the situation in Kosovo expands, the expanding conflict would involve Montenegro, Greece, Russia and other nation states in the surrounding area. All those nation states could be involved in the larger conflagration. If that happened, the world simply could not turn a blind eye.

In the larger scheme of things, in an effort to prevent more bloodshed and in an effort to save more lives, while NATO would like to have the UN's tacit involvement, it should go ahead regardless because I think a larger principle is involved. It would add a lot more credibility to the United Nations in its ability to act early to intervene.

With respect to Bosnia, we were far too late in intervening. As a result, 250,000 people were killed and the countryside was laid to waste for generations to come.

If there is any lesson to be learned from recent history, we should look at Bosnia and see the abysmal failure of NATO. If it moves a little further along within the confines of international law to act where it is appropriate, then I think it will be justified in the long term not only within the nation states that participate but also history will take a favourable view to the intervention.

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak in this debate on Kosovo.

We have been here before. When I was first elected in 1993 I remember a debate in the House on the same conflict. What the intervening five years have proven is that we have learned nothing.

While over the last nine months Albanians in Kosovo have been slaughtered, murdered, mutilated and raped, we in the international community have wrung our hands, pointed fingers and done nothing. This has happened time and time again. The last five years have proven that we have learned no lessons whatsoever.

With respect to Kosovo, in 1989 Slobodan Milosevic came to power with a promise to rid Kosovo of its 93% ethnic Albanian population. This was a promise he made and true to his word he has been engaging in the process of ethnic and cultural genocide of the people there.

First he started to close down the schools, then he threw Albanians out of jobs. What are they supposed to do? They started the Kosovo Liberation Army to try to defend their people. They were successful initially but they have been losing quite badly.

As we speak, 250,000 innocent civilians have been displaced and 50,000 innocent Albanian people from Kosovo are in the forests freezing, starving and sick. Some have been subjected to some of the worst atrocities any of us could possibly imagine. And we still sit on our hands.

It is remarkable that as we stand here today trying to decide what we are going to do, for months people have been slaughtered. We have only one option in the face of a despot like Milosevic. That is to bomb. He understands one thing and one thing only and that unfortunately is force. I am certain that is not what his people want but he, a man of shrewd political and ruthless means, wants to do that. He will understand nothing but force.

We have tried diplomatic initiatives time and time again and they have been completely fruitless. He has played games with us. He has teased us with the hope that he will negotiate rather than fight, but this is only temporary and he goes back and continues the onslaught. No more. There are some solutions that would solve the problem.

One, Milosevic has been given the ultimatum. We know from Secretary General Annan that he is not withdrawing his troops and we must bomb. We must bomb hard military targets, hard military Serbian targets within Kosovo and move into greater Serbia if necessary.

Two, we have to ensure that in the future, after that is done, there will be a continued reinforcement of the blockade around Serbia. Right now it is a joke. The Russians and the Greeks are providing arms and cash, and military hardware to the Serbs, thereby fueling this problem. The Russians want a foot in the Balkans. That blockade has to be strengthened if we are going to meet success.

Three, the legitimate concerns of the Serbian people have to be met. Kosovo is to the Serbs what Jerusalem is to the Jews. The Field of Black Birds is a very important symbol for them. Unfortunately it is a negative symbol for them but it is an important one and one that must be respected. It is a shrine for the Serbian people. They must be allowed free and unfettered access to it.

We must not support an independent country called Kosovo. If we were to support the pre-1989 situation when Kosovo was an autonomous state, then I think we would find a reasonable compromise which would enable the Albanians in Kosovo to live peacefully and would enable the Serbs and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to have free access to those shrines.

If we do this, a compromise can be made. However, the compromise is being made much more difficult by the actions of President Milosevic. Through his genocidal actions he is polarizing communities and laying the seeds of future violent ethnic discontent for years to come. Unfortunately this tragic situation will bubble up again.

We have heard some discussions today about intervention. It has been proven over the last several decades that the world has been unable or unwilling to deal with conflicts when they occur and only get involved after a huge loss of lives has taken place. From Rwanda to Chechnya, to Cambodia, to the Sudan and to others, the world has sat on its hands while innocent civilians have been slaughtered.

That is why international law respects, acknowledges and supports intervention by outside powers within the borders of a country if gross human rights abuses are taking place. The reason it supports that is that although we support the integrity of a nation state, international law respects the integrity and safety of people over and above the nation state. In other words, a despot cannot abuse people and expect to go away unscathed.

We collectively have a responsibility to protect people not only on humanitarian grounds but also for very pragmatic reasons. What happens in a conflict half a world away winds up on our own doorstep through increasing demands on our defence budgets, aid budgets and our social programs domestically as people migrate away from an ethnic conflict and wind up as refugees on our shores.

International law respects and supports intervention. The proof in the pudding is when we look at who pays the price. Civilians pay the price. It was not always that way. In World War I 85% of the casualties were soldiers. Wars took place between nation states. In World War II 60% were soldiers. Today 85% of the penalties that are paid in blood, in death and in rape are paid for by innocent unarmed men, women and children. The civilian population pays the price in conflicts that are by and large ethnic conflicts within the boundaries of a country. They generally are not wars between nation states.

We need political will. We need a spine, we need guts and we need courage. I and my colleagues do not want to stand here five years from now on a debate about another group of people who have been murdered and slaughtered while we sat around waiting for somebody to go first.

Canada with its enormous diplomatic ability and international respect can work with other nation states to pull them together. I introduced a private members' motion last year asking the Minister of Foreign Affairs to bring together like-minded nations to have a common foreign policy in certain areas and particularly the area of conflict prevention.

I am very happy to see that the Minister of Foreign Affairs signed a treaty with Norway. We need to expand this treaty with other like-minded nations such as New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Sweden, Finland and Costa Rica for starters. There are others. We should bring them together maybe in Ottawa to discuss a common foreign policy for certain areas. We should have a common focus in a certain part of our foreign policy that deals with one thing, conflict prevention.

Early intervention by identifying the precursors to conflict and having the tools to address them are essential. We should first start with non-military means and then work up to military means.

I was disappointed earlier today. I introduced a private members' motion asking the House of Commons to call on the United Nations to indict Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes and to allow the UNHCR and NGOs free and unfettered access to the refugees in and around Kosovo. I was deeply saddened that the House did not give unanimous consent. I hope the government will take heed of that motion and adopt it as soon as possible.

I am glad we had this debate. We must remember that in the future we cannot allow this genocide in Kosovo or in other country to continue. We must work early and preventatively because the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children are at stake.