Mauril Bélanger

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, March 8th, 1999]

Eighty per cent.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, March 8th, 1999]

Thank you to my colleague, and three other parties on the other side of the House.

I conclude with a question. I wish anyone who has thought about this debate, this bill, this issue would ask themselves this question and answer it fair and honestly. It is a very simply question.

Which foreign publication, which American magazine, is not allowed into this country? I dare any member of the House to find a foreign or an American publication to be more precise that is not allowed in this country. They will not. It is a totally open market. We are not restricting any American publication or magazine from coming into the country. Canadians can buy any American magazine they wish to buy on almost any news stand and yet that seems not to be good enough for the members opposite. Why?

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, prior to Oral Question Period, I was speaking to the bill under consideration, Bill C-55, an act to protect the Canadian periodical industry.

I mentioned that, contrary to what certain members of the Reform Party were saying, our neighbours to the south, the Americans, do not have the right, with impunity as our colleagues were indicating, to impose sanctions or to retaliate, because they too are party to international trade agreements, such as NAFTA and the WTO.

There are rules and procedures, and if the Americans wanted to retaliate, they too would have to comply, despite what the Reform Party members are saying.

I also mentioned that we on the government side are not prepared to hand certain sectors of our industry priority over others. The government does not share the opinion of some members of the official opposition who do not consider Canadian culture worth fighting for. Both agriculture, which is vital to our economy, as I mentioned, and Canada's culture, which is vital to the well-being of our psyche, must be protected.

As I was saying, one feeds the body, the other, the mind. Unfortunately, our Reform colleagues are not quite as concerned as they might be about the food for the mind that Canada's culture represents.

I would also like to take them up on another mistaken notion. Two weeks ago, with colleagues from the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I visited Thunder Bay and the western cities of Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Vancouver and White Horse. My colleague, who is the official opposition critic, toured the eastern part of the country with the other half of the standing committee.

In the western leg of the trip, the Canadian public was very outspoken and supportive in its comments about the need for this bill, once again contrary to what Reform Party members have said.

Canadians generally are very aware of the importance of having strong Canadian cultural industries that are able to compete with other countries.

This brings me to another point that our colleagues are unable or perhaps unwilling to understand. We are not talking about undue protection. We are talking about drawing up ground rules that are fair to everyone.

We are not here suggesting that our magazine industry cannot compete, as members of the Reform Party might be suggesting. It is not that at all. It can and has done so over the last 30 years. Our industry has developed quite well because we have had a level playing field in place and we insist on maintaining such a level playing field.

It is not level when one competitor has an incredible advantage of having overhead costs that 70% less than the overhead costs of the Canadian publishers. That is the essence of a split-run edition. They cover the costs of preparing the edition. They come into a country. They take out the pages that carry ads and which are replaced by other ads. They can undercut the market greatly without necessarily adding anything of any significance or value to the Canadian cultural aspect of what these people are trying to do. In most instances that is what has happened. It is not a fair or level playing field.

Under a fair and equitable competitive system our magazine industry will compete with any other in the world. It is not fair if its competitors have a 70% overhead cost advantage.

The other thing the Reform Party seems to forget is that it is indeed a unique relationship in terms of Canada and the U.S. and the magazine industry.

Eighty to ninety per cent of the magazines exported by our American neighbours are exported in one country only, Canada, because of the proximity and in a number of provinces similarity of language. Therefore there is a great deal of affinity in the market. That does not seem to satisfy them. They want more.

They control over 50% of our market. They have 80% of our shelf space. It is not enough. They want more. When the Americans say “if you do this we will do that so back off”, Reformers say “we do not want to protect, we will back off and the 6,000 people who happen to work in this industry, too bad for them, so sorry, so sad, we are not prepared to do that”.

We will stand by the magazine industry in this country as we have in the past. Members think this bill is exclusively from the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It is not. Do not make that mistake. It is a bill supported by the government and members on this side of the House and we will see soon enough on that.

[Division No. 327, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys is absolutely correct. My comments were directed to the Reform Party members, not to the other parties in opposition. My apologies.

With the exception of the Reform Party, everyone understands the importance of this bill and is prepared to support it.

Getting back to the Reform members, who claim the Americans would be entitled to all sorts of reprisals against Canada, this is absolutely false. If they bothered to check, to read NAFTA or the agreements between us and the World Trade Organization, they would realize that the U.S. has no more right than any other country that is a party to these agreements to seek reprisals with impunity. They must adhere to certain prescribed standards.

If the Americans decide to go outside the rules they themselves have agreed to, that is a whole other story. Once again, this situation gives an insight into the mentality of the official opposition, for when the Americans bark, the Reform hides out, of fear for their bite.

We have heard a number of Reform members claim that there would be reprisals in the area of agriculture. Unfortunately, they tend to forget that, yes, it is true that agriculture is an essential sector of our economy, one that is vital to the well-being of our nation and its people. No one can deny that fact, but it is also true that culture is of equal importance. One provides food for the body and the other for the spirit. Unfortunately, they tend to neglect the second aspect all too often.

I realize—

[Division No. 327, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the observations of my colleagues opposite on this very important bill.

As they spoke, I realized that either they did not really understand what they were talking about or there was some ill will on the other side.

For example, when one of our colleagues opposite says that the United States, our neighbours to the south, would be entitled, if the bill passed, to—

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I move that all questions stand.

[Government Response To Petitions, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government has guaranteed stable funding to the CBC and Société Radio-Canada until the year 2003. My hon. colleague could verify from the estimates that that has been increased by $60 million this year, some of it for operational costs and a good chunk of it for technical investments. The government remains committed to this very important institution, that is, CBC and Radio-Canada.

[Such A Long Journey, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the members of this House who will be among the some 600 guests expected this evening for the showing of the feature film entitled Such a Long Journey .

This feature film is the result of a pan-Canadian effort involving Toronto based production company Film Works, as well as director Sturla Gunarrsson and distributor Red Sky Entertainment, both of Vancouver. The film has already achieved considerable success with 12 Genie Award nominations, taking home three Genie Awards, including best performance by an actor in the leading role for Roshan Seth, who is with us today as well as others involved in the making of this film. Such a Long Journey is based on the internationally acclaimed novel by Governor General Award winner Rohinton Mistry. Set in Bombay in 1971, the year India went to war with Pakistan, this feature film tells the story of a hard working bank clerk and devoted family man who gradually sees his modest life unravelling.

Please join me in wishing success to all of those who have contributed to the making of Such a Long Journey .

[Cbc Funding, March 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have an opportunity to address the motion and on the whole to congratulate the member for her continuing support of Canadian culture and Canadian industries. To address the particular issue, I want to point out a few things.

For several years now the Canadian government has recognized the importance of giving the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the financial stability it needs to adequately fulfill its mandate as a public broadcaster. It was with that objective in mind that two years ago the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced that the CBC would receive stable funding until 2003.

In recent years CBC endured budget cuts as part of Canada's joint efforts with everyone's shoulders to the wheel to rationalize public spending and essentially reverse the growth of continuing deficits and accumulated debt, which we have now achieved. The efforts of all Canadians have borne fruit and the era of cuts to the CBC and other institutions of government, be they cultural or otherwise, are essentially over.

On February 11, 1997 the Canadian government guaranteed the CBC stable funding for a period of five years beginning in 1998 as well as additional funds to ensure the survival and development Radio Canada International.

At the dawn of the new millennium, which we all talk about regularly, Canadians can take pride in the achievement of their national public radio and television networks over the past 60 years. The CBC is the fruit of the combined efforts of many individuals from all backgrounds over the decades.

The CBC is one of the pillars of our broadcasting system. Like other members of the industry, CBC is trying to adapt to the evolution of the constantly changing universe and to diversify its services in order to allow its audience to benefit from the never ending technological improvements being made in this field, such as the Internet, and digital radio and digital television which are looming on the horizon.

The CBC occupies a central position in the Canadian audio-visual landscape. The government gave it a major social, economic and cultural role and enshrined its mandate in the Broadcasting Act.

The CBC must offer radio and television services that provide predominantly and distinctly Canadian programming that informs, enlightens, entertains and reflects Canada and its regions. At the same time the CBC's programming must actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression in French and in English, contribute in shared national consciousness and identity and reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada.

It is an ambitious mandate. That makes it all the more stimulating to fulfill it. The CBC has been meeting that challenge with enthusiasm since its creation. Over the years the CBC has become a household word and remains an integral part of Canadians' everyday lives.

With its funding assured, the CBC met the government's expectations by announcing in its business plan, the one it prepared in 1998, a new action strategy that is firmly focused on the future and on Canadian programming.

The CBC has identified a series of objectives designed to reaffirm its mandate as a national public network. It intends to be the Canadian broadcaster. More than ever, CBC's programming will be Canadian and will reflect the taste and interests of Canadians. The CBC will continue to treat its audiences as citizens of Canada and not simply as consumers of the service. Decisions about what programs to present will be based first and foremost on a desire to serve the CBC's audience, not dictated by commercial considerations.

The CBC is committed to continuing to participate actively in broadcasting amateur sports which contribute to the richness of our cultural heritage and to the health of the Canadians who practise them.

This autumn the minister told the chair of the Canadian television fund that she wanted the distribution rules for the fund amended to put the CBC on the same footing as other broadcasters.

Beginning next spring, the CBC will no longer have a reserve envelope for access to the fund. As before the CBC will have access to the fund through the independent producers whose productions it broadcasts. The minister's request does not limit that access or call it into question. However, eliminating the envelope that gave it privileged access will create a new balance among Canadian producers and broadcasters.

Canadian production has made great strides since the fund was created three years ago. There are more Canadian stories on television and movie screens than ever before. It is no longer necessary to give the CBC special treatment in the distribution of the fund. From now on each production's access to the fund will be determined strictly on the basis of its intrinsic qualities. That means the productions broadcast by the CBC will continue to be subsidized by the fund in so far as they demonstrate they possess the necessary qualities to qualify. We are confident the CBC will be able to perform in this very competitive environment.

The minister also wants to ensure that the CBC, and private broadcasters, contribute in a fair and equitable manner to the development and distribution of Canadian cinema. If the past is anything to go by, we are convinced that the CBC will continue to stand out as a broadcaster of high-quality Canadian programming.

This change will not affect the stability of the CBC's funding, which, let me reiterate, is stable until 2003. We are confident that this stability will allow the CBC to continue to fulfil its mandate and to move ahead in this universe of technology and new services.

In conclusion, the issue raised in the motion has already been addressed. The Canadian government reaffirms its commitment to the national public network which, since its creation, has gone from strength to strength and confirmed how relevant it still is to Canadians.

The service offered by the CBC is one of the best in the world. The CBC's broadcasts let Canadians keep in touch and communicate with each other, from sea to sea; and the CBC remains an essential partner in the creation of harmonious social and cultural bonds among Canadians. The CBC is part of the family, and the Canadian government is continuing to help it in its mission.

In closing, I remind everyone that the CRTC is preparing to conduct a cross-Canada consultation on the CBC's mandate, in addition to holding hearings, in May, on the renewal of the corporation's licences. These two events are public and open to all Canadians across the country.

We hope that all those who want to share their satisfaction with or concerns about the CBC will take the opportunity to express themselves to the Commission and share their vision of the CBC's future on the eve of the new millennium.