Mauril Bélanger

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the member opposite. Is he aware that the WTO recognizes that advertising is a service?

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to start. That was one single argument, repeated 1,500 times. I guess repetition does not necessarily make an argument any better, but we will leave that for another day.

I want to comment a bit on some of the comments made by the member for Fraser Valley. He was touting a magazine and quoting from it, telling us that he liked to read Canadian stories in Canadian magazines. We all agree. He then made a statement to the effect that he does not need advertising. We all know that, but that is the point of the bill.

For him to be able to read those Canadian magazines and read those Canadian stories, those magazines need advertising dollars. That is the point of this legislation. I think he might be starting to understand.

One of the longstanding policies of the Government of Canada has been to help the magazine industry in securing enough advertising dollars by not helping split runs. If we allow foreign magazines without any Canadian content, without any expenses on that side, to come and skim advertising dollars and services, then we will indeed cripple our Canadian magazine industry.

It is rather heartening to see that one of the members of the Reform Party understands that somebody might need advertising dollars in order to put out these magazines. That is the purpose of the bill. We hope to get it through second reading and to committee and, with the help of the opposition parties, we will move on.

I have listened to all of the speeches from Reform members and there is a theme coming out. I thought initially it might have been sheepishness on their part in that they were raising these bogeymen. They say that we are poking our American neighbours in the eye and they are going to retaliate. They say that we should not aggravate them because they will then come around and kill our wheat industry, the hog industry and softwood lumber. They threw in hockey and a lot of other things.

Maybe I was not accurate about them being sheepish, because the more I listened the more things came out, such as “We should listen more to the American trade secretary saying this and that. We will not win. We will go to the WTO and they will quash it”. It seems that members of the Reform Party are not here to defend Canadian interests. They seem to be here to defend American interests. They seem to be defending anything that is foreign, but not Canadian.

We want to help an industry that has grown over the past 30 years, an industry which consists of 1,000 small businesses and employs over 6,000 Canadians.

Reform members are giving me the impression that they may not be sheepish, but they seem to be Americans in sheep's clothing.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of fallacies we just heard that I think ought to be corrected.

First, it should be noted by all members that even the WTO recognizes that advertising is a service and is to be treated as such. It falls under that agreement. To say otherwise is simply inaccurate.

Second, it was rather interesting that the member would mention the article that appeared in one of the dailies today. The author uses a government study and accepts one of its conclusions that such a scenario would generate so much more revenue. The same study reaches a conclusion that he does not share, therefore he does not agree with it. He cannot have it both ways.

Someone either accepts what a study says, all of it, or not. The person cannot pick and choose, which is what the author was doing to justify his premise. The member shares the premise that if foreign magazines were allowed to purchase advertising services in the country they could not or would not offer deeply discounted service. Therefore they would essentially skim that industry and cripple the Canadian periodical industry which is exactly what this bill intends to prevent.

I found it rather interesting that he would bring up the copyright matter. The matter of tape levy has not been decided by the copyright board. The member should be aware of that. To say otherwise is just not accurate.

What I found most fascinating about his raising the copyright legislation, Bill C-32 at the time, as he will remember from committee, is that what happened then is happening again here today.

The Reform Party of Canada, as he was talking about smother love, is so enamoured with things American that it builds a bogeyman and says if we do this, they will do that. They will quash us here and they will do this and that to other industries. It is prepared to treat cultural industries as second class industries in favour of others. We are not prepared to do that. As government, we will stand for Canadian values and Canadian culture with respect to our trade agreements.

The most fascinating thing about the member's bringing up the copyright debate is that the Reform Party, as today, was then isolated. It could not see beyond its blinkers that there are industries that have to be protected and promoted in this country.

When the crunch came, it was not even at the table. It left the table. It was isolated then. I suspect we will see through the committee studies of this bill it will be isolated then as well.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Shefford for her comments. She covered the issue and its background very well. She has raised legitimate concerns and I hope that the committee will be able to shed some light on them.

That having been said, I urge the House to return the bill to committee after passing it, in principle, at second reading, so that specific aspects can be considered in greater depth. I am looking forward to some good discussions with her colleague from West Nova in committee. Again, I thank her for her comments.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in response to the comments from the member, it is indeed a difficult situation.

There is one country that is essentially dominating in many areas, such as the movie industry, magazines, television and so forth. The government is perfectly aware of that. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Canadian Heritage as early as last June—and the member might recall because she attended some of the functions—welcomed a delegation from some 20 countries to discuss this very difficult situation. It is not unique to Canada. It is a situation that is also of concern to France, Greece, Mexico, Italy and a number of countries around the world.

This monoculturalism, if you will, is a reflection of the strength of American cultural products which are swamping, in some areas, certain countries' attempts to have their own culture reflected in their own vehicles. The Government of Canada, through the Minister of Canadian Heritage, is tackling that. It is very difficult and it will be a drawn out effort which we will not be able to achieve alone as a country.

Other countries which have that same preoccupation are now joining hands to make sure that indeed their cultural sovereignty, which in some cases is seriously threatened, is protected, encouraged, defended and promoted. This government fully intends to be intrinsically involved in that effort.

We welcome comments from the member opposite, who is perfectly aware of the difficulties that this kind of effort involves. We will welcome her continued support and the continued support of her party in attempting to resolve, in perhaps a larger fashion, this whole difficulty.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, what I find interesting in this debate is that the Reform Party, on the one hand, is saying that we have to respect our international trade obligations and, on the other hand, is saying that we cannot do that. This is indeed the result of a decision made at the WTO. The postal rate on foreign magazines will reflect the WTO decision.

The point is that the government is respecting all foreign decisions of the WTO, which is why Bill C-55 is before us. Will it have an impact? Of course it will have an impact. Of course there will have to be adjustments made.

Will it be done on the backs of small newspapers? I think not.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Dartmouth for her comments. I welcome some of the criticisms, some of which may not be as accurate as one would like. However, I welcome the constructive approach and I look forward to looking at this legislation in greater detail with her at committee.

I will correct one of the slight inaccuracies. The member was essentially saying that this government was insisting that cultural matters be within the MAI. I not only have to disagree, but the minister who was spearheading the Canadian efforts vis-à-vis the MAI was quite explicit a number of times in this House that culture was to be excluded from it. It would preferably be a sector exclusion and it would certainly be a Canadian exclusion. To say that the government was trying to put culture on the table with the MAI is not quite accurate. I hope the member will accept that.

I will return to comments made by Reform about postal subsidies for small newspapers. This government supports that. We support small newspapers, in some cases to the tune of 75% of the cost of their postal rates. Postal subsidization is one of the ways the Government of Canada supports the periodical industry.

Would the members of the Reform Party have us continue in one case and not in the other? Surely to goodness they do not support such double standards.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out some of the contradictions the member across does not shy away from. He claimed at one point that people have to make a living. We all agree with that. However he would discard, out of hand, without a second thought, the 6,000-plus Canadians who work in this field. He does not seem to care about that field.

We care. A government has to be responsible and take a balanced approach. The government has an incredible reputation worldwide as a trading nation. We have participated in international treaties to allow free trade. We have respected those treaties. We have been consistent in saying that cultural matters are not to be included. We protect, enhance and promote Canadian cultural industries.

There does not seem to be a problem over there with people making money except when it comes to people working in the cultural fields. There are 6,000 people working in those fields. What about the people working in the film industry, the TV industry, the book publishing industry and the music industry? They would discard them out of hand. They say that they cannot make money. They say it is okay for others to make money but not for people in the film industry, the publication field or in periodicals.

Such inconsistencies speak exactly of the attitude of this party. It cowers in front of the Americans. The Americans say boo, it sheepishly says it cannot do this.

This government is standing up for Canadian cultural industries and will continue to do so.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, first regarding this notion of the back door, if the member equates the floor of the House of Commons as the back door, then he has a problem. The government is not attempting to use any back door here. It is presenting legislation on the floor of the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada. That is far from a back door, number one.

Number two, if the member is not prepared to understand that the cultural industries need support such as advertising services which could be scooped up by foreign publications, then obviously he is out of tune and is not in touch.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken to say this goes against NAFTA. Cultural matters have been excluded from NAFTA. Whether or not this is referred to the World Trade Organization is a decision our neighbours to the south will make. It would be a rather sheepish way to run a country to cower because they threaten to do that. We are not prepared to do that.

If the member is not prepared to understand that there is GATT, and GATS where we are talking about services and not products, then that is where he is mistaken. It is the belief of this government that this will withstand the test wherever. Canada's cultural sovereignty has to be protected, defended, encouraged and promoted. That is what this government has done and will continue to do.