Industry Committee on Feb. 28th, 2007

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Point of order again, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do you have another point of order, Monsieur Petit?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

The mover is not currently here. I would like to know from the chair if there is a standing order that requires that the mover remain here, at the committee. I would like the mover to come back and sit down with the committee cause we are currently discussing his motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Monsieur Petit, once the motion has been moved, once the motion begins debate, then the mover does not have to be here. The committee takes ownership of the motion once it's debated. So the committee has ownership. The mover does not have to be here in order for that motion to continue being debated.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Allow me to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the mover is the individual who drafted the text. If we need to make amendments at some point, the mover must be here. He is the one who drafted the motion in both English and in French.

When I table an amendment in French, I want him to understand the French, and if necessary, I want the translators to spend the whole night working on it, so that things are done the way they should be.

I don't want to tire you out with this but I do want to be specific: I feel that the mover should be here. It's too easy, otherwise: he just tables his motion and leaves. He is the one who drafted it. He even dictated it, earlier. He should be here, therefore. That is why I am asking for the mover to be present.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Monsieur Petit, I know you raised a valid point. But I would just say that the procedure is that once the motion is moved, and once the motion is debated, it becomes the property of the committee. If the mover is no longer here and an amendment is moved, debate starts on the amendment and the amendment to the mover's motion is accepted or rejected. The mover may not like that, but that is acceptable under committee procedure.

So we will go back to Monsieur Arthur.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When I asked Mr. Richard French about the strange contacts and unacceptable gift exchanges between certain individuals regulated by the CRTC and certain CRTC commissioners, I was not attempting to imply any guilt on Mr. French's part, but rather I was trying to demonstrate to committee members that by continuing to trust a narrow regulatory system in the broadcasting and telecommunication sector, we are creating illusions that may be very costly to us.

That is why Mr. Bernier's proposals, that I enthusiastically support, are absolutely necessary if we do not want to soon become a country that does not respect initiative and the free market, and that continues to entrust to the failed practitioners of this profession the monitoring of the activities of those who still practice it.

For 35 years I was governed by the CRTC in the radio broadcasting sector and I lost everything. For several years, while I was working on air with a radio station in Montreal, I was the only federalist radio host in Quebec. When people found individuals in the CRTC who could use that negatively, they did so. I won't give you all the details, even though some would like me to go into all those details.

I will tell you only that I even saw in the CRTC, under the authority of Charles Dalfen, who is on our list of future witnesses, a senior official in this regulatory body put pressure on licence holders to not use certain artists and hosts, in order to comply with a black list on which the CRTC kept the names of some radio broadcasters, including the one who's talking to you.

I had the opportunity of owning a radio station for a few months. After having built up that radio station for years, I received an offer of purchase from one of the large radio broadcasters in Quebec, Télémédia, and we accepted the offer. However, that offer had come from a lower-level official in the comnpany, a vice-president, and in Mr. Philippe de Gaspé Beaubien's organization, everyone was a subordinate, everyone was less important, except himself. By accepting that $5 million offer of purchase for our radio station, we ended up in a mysterious operation involving the CRTC—that everyone trusts so well—whose purpose was to cancel that purchase.

There are powerful individuals, capable of dealing with commissioners of the CRTC and their senior officials on an intimate, commercial and profitable level, who make mistakes and who see people make mistakes within their organization. I witnessed a situation where the CRTC was used to fix a vice-president's mistake. A sale that had been consented to was cancelled by the CRTC because it was in the interest of certain extremely powerful individuals.

Obviously the CRTC is an organization that has not aged well and is a disgrace to the goals of the regulations that it could apply.

Several years ago, one of the radio broadcasting empires in Quebec—you'll forgive me for not naming it—figured out how to have all of its requests accepted by the CRTC. The very pretty lobbyist who is responsible for these issues also shared evenings with the CRTC chair. If anybody wants to know who this is, I will be happy to disclose that in private.

This organization, that can decide the fate of those working in an area I know well, radio, is not worthy of the trust that you give it when you ask it to protect consumers in the telecommunications sector. You're dealing with people who are just, generally, failed practitioners of their profession.

Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.

Wise people have taught us that. At the CRTC, the people who hold important positions are generally people who have failed in their own broadcasting profession, and who are picked up and placed somewhere where they are at the mercy of powerful people and organizations who derive millions of dollars from their regulated activities.

At this point, I cannot understand why an extraordinary report reviewing telecommunications regulations could not be taken into consideration; that our committee was unable to take these precious recommendations, to adapt them to the needs expressed by witnesses who appeared before us, to respect the fact that a member of the panel told us himself that it was normal to use a gradual approach, starting with the minister's action, and continuing towards a change in regulations, and eventually a change in legislation.

I am scandalized to note, after the Liberals had the courage to call for this study and the witnesses were generous enough to appear and make recommendations, having discovered problems—namely the situation facing the small cable distributors who run the risk of being crushed by competition that is too fierce and direct—that these people came here confident that we would propose amendments, modifications, adjustments, accommodations and that we, foolishly and with partisanship—and allow an almost-independent to tell you—would rather turn this into a prosecution of the minister's actions before the House of Commons. To my mind, that is profoundly disappointing.

I say this as the only independent member in the House, and as one of the only independents to have had the joy, the privilege and the honour of sitting on a House of Commons committee. I've explained to you that I had accepted this invitation out of loyalty to Mr. Bernier and the reforms he is undertaking, because I know that in telecommunications, like in broadcasting, the regulator in whom you have confidence is unworthy of your confidence, even if you are the ones who appointed him.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Arthur.

We now have Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I would like us to examine the member's motion. It says:

That the Committee report to the House recommending that the Minister of Industry withdraw the order varying Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15 and table in Parliament a comprehensive package of policy, statutory and regulatory reforms to modernize the telecommunications services industry.

The words "réformes aux politiques" must be struck. You cannot say that in French.

We don't know what exactly a "comprehensive package of policy... reforms" means. Those are general terms. The word "statutory" is used; what statutes does that refer to, the ones affecting the Department of Industry, the ones governing the CRTC, or other acts in force? The scope is so broad that if we were to table this kind of motion in the House, we will also table all legislation affecting the CRTC, the Department of Industry, as well as all other orders.

It also talks about "regulatory reforms". Think about that. The regulatory power of a minister or a department is far-reaching. An act may contain five or six sections and a host of regulations.

For example, the act respecting the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec contains about 100 clauses mentioning that a person is not at fault in the case of an accident, and so on. Just to understand the act, you need of stack of regulations that is three or four feet high.

The motion is so broad that we cannot understand what these people want. They talk about amending an act or withdrawing a CRTC order. The CRTC, in the event that you are not aware of this, is the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. I thank the Bloc Québécois for doing such work for Canadian institutions.

Mr. Chairman, is there a point of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. McTeague, a point of order.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

It is not really a point of order.

Mr. Petit, I think that you would agree to allow Mr. Shaw and Ms. Acharya to leave. Their presence is no longer necessary. We will continue on our side. I did not want to interrupt your speech. Since we still have a long way to go, I suggest letting them leave.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

With all due respect to my Liberal colleague, we cannot let them leave: they are the analysts, and they are at our disposal. We must foresee the possibility of there being a problem during the discussion. It is regrettable, but I would agree only if two other analysts are provided.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Petit, I have a point of order. Mr. Petit, I am not prepared to use any member as a hostage. You might want to do that; I don't. But I would like to see the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. McTeague, let's not go there.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

There are no hostages here.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, let's not go there.

I'm going to suggest this as the chair. First of all, the clerk is Mr. Latimer. The two analysts are Mr. Shaw and Ms. Acharya. We have given instructions to Lalita. She is pregnant, and so she has the authority of the chair to leave if she so desires. I think that's the fair way to go. I think perhaps we might need Mr. Shaw's expertise if an amendment comes up or if we discuss a motion.

So I would impose on Mr. Shaw perhaps to stay, but Lalita can leave at any time. I think that is fair.

Mr. Petit, you have the floor.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

However, as I already mentioned, they are staff of the House who work for the members. I consider that you are depriving me of a privilege. I sit on the committee, and the committee answers to the House. The House makes staff available to us. You deserve an "A" for your compassion, but you are depriving me of something I am entitled to.

I could even call for an end to the discussion and for you to find someone to replace this woman or man. When I sit on the committee, that is my right. If you remove it from me, I do not know what may happen in an hour, in half an hour or in 15 minutes. I have absolutely no idea. I answer to the House, and the House gives me people with whom I can work.

If your decision this evening is valid, that means we can also do the same during the day. We just need to have less staff from time to time. We could do that. It would be possible. Whether the committee sits during the day or at night does not change anything.

You do deserve an "A" for compassion, but I think that you are cutting off my privilege as a member.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Lalita has not asked to leave. Lalita has graciously stayed, as has Mr. Shaw and everyone else who's helping us in this meeting here. So I don't see it as an issue, and I don't want to make it into an issue.

If she feels the need to leave, she will indicate to me, and I will raise it with the committee. Perhaps we will decide whether we need another researcher, but I would just point out that if Mr. Shaw stays, which he's indicated to me he will, he is more than capable, by himself, of answering any and all questions on telecommunications, and I think all members of the committee would agree with that.

If it is an issue that arises, Lalita will inform me, and we will deal with it then. I prefer not to get into an argument about it now.

Monsieur Petit, you have the floor. We'll hear your points of view.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

I want to clarify that I was interrupted. I don't have something to say, I must continue, that's all. I didn't stop talking, you interrupted me with a point of order.

As I was saying, the CRTC is the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. We had to confront the organization in the Quebec City region. For those of you who are not familiar with the region, I will remind you that some highly sensitive issues gave rise to a confrontation. The result was, because the CRTC is of a single mind, that the only radio stations allowed to express themselves were the ones broadcasting the message that people at the CRTC wanted to hear.

My colleague Mr. Arthur told you about his adventure. It is true. The CRTC literally came down on him like the wolf on the fold. These people did indeed gag our radio stations. They gagged CIME-FM, CKNU-FM and CHOI-FM, because the people at those stations were not saying the same thing as they were.

The CRTC has a very particular culture. It is collective, not individual. As soon as someone looks up and decides to undertake reforms, the CRTC immediately turns to its guidelines. Since the broadcasting licence is such a sensitive issue, the CRTC regularly threatens to withdraw or amend the licence, so that it is always right.

The CRTC wants to be right. You have confidence in it, but that is not our case, in the Quebec City region. In fact, many stations have literally closed because of CRTC decisions, because they did not think like the CRTC. They have always thought and continue to believe today that their views are the only ones that can apply.

The CRTC is truly an old institution. It has not updated itself and still uses exactly the same parameters. According to these parameters, the organization applies a strictly collective approach. Decisions are made by governments, for example as regards the reports that we have been talking about since the beginning. The problem is that they try to keep individuality in check. That is perhaps the reason why we are compelled to talk.

The Liberals are criticizing us for our individuality. They are a collective movement, like the Bloc Québécois. They are both collective, left-wing movements like the NDP. They have virtually the same views and these core beliefs underlie everything they do.

For our part, we are new here, in Ottawa. I am not an old member. On the other side, some have grown roots. They are still here after more than a dozen years. My philosophy is different. It is based on individuality. Can we be criticized for that? Yes, perhaps. I can tell you however that it enables each and every one of you to advance. Except that you are working collectively, and in so doing, you are hindering individuals.

You develop legislation. For about 30 years, I have been closely monitoring legislation adopted by the Canadian Parliament. Sometimes this legislation is so strange that we wonder if it wasn't adopted by the Duma, in Russia.

I am not all that old, but I do remember the time where certain investments were completely banned in Alberta. In fact, the Prime Minister of the day created the Foreign Investment Review Agency, the FIRA, to prevent more than 49% of stocks from being held by foreign companies. At least 51% of the stocks had to be held by Canadian companies.

What happened? In Alberta, it caused a collapse. In the 1980s and subsequent years, they literally broke the back of the Albertan economy. What was it all about? It was about programs like FIRA or companies affected by it. That also represented the CRTC's collective idea.

One of the reasons why Alberta revolted, as the province of Quebec did, is that they were no longer able to tolerate the centralization they had known for 30 years. For 30 years, Ottawa was bringing people down to their knees, in Quebec and Alberta, but not for the same reasons.

In Alberta, they broke the back of the economy. It has just started to recover. Albertans are currently very lucky: where does the $9 billion surplus come from? It comes from the sale of oil that they want to prevent us from selling to the mean Americans. But that's what makes us grow. What will the $9 billion translate into? It will take the shape of equalization, transfers to the provinces. It is thanks to Albertans that, in some cases, we have money in our pockets, for example in my province.

Moreover, there was a time when the province of Quebec was one of the richest, believe it or not. Specifically on April 14, 1958, when I arrived in Canada, the province of Quebec ranked second after Ontario. Fifty years later, we rank second last. We are on the verge of being overtaken by Newfoundland and Labrador. For 40 years, what kind of governments did we have? They were governments like the ones we know today, governments with a socialist bent, a communist bent, from time to time, that tried to follow France, Cuba and communist China.

Imagine this. Who was the first to recognize communist China? It was our Prime Minister of the day; his name was Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and it was in 1968. But today, he is being criticized. He ran to recognize communist China as a state. Today we are critical of him because China is selling us all of its textiles, in Quebec and Canada. But our province depended on the textile industry.

My colleague, Mr. Crête, knows something about that. There were textile companies in his riding. Now they are on their knees, as they are in the Drummondville region. Why? Because communist China, that we recognized, or rather that they recognized, is currently knocking us off our feet. They are still socialist ideas, visions of grandeur: we are beautiful, we are nice, we love everyone. But in the mean time, individuals living in Canada are suffering as I am and as are my colleagues Mr. Crête and Mr. Vincent, who are from my province. We are suffering a great deal, because we have a problem that is a bit like the one in Alberta, but not for the same reason.

In about the 1950s, before I was born but about which I have read, we had the largest manufacturing industry in Canada. We didn't have cars at the time; then Ontario swallowed us. But we had the largest textile companies, we had the largest sawmills. We had all of that in the province of Quebec.

In the space of a few years, precisely because of the famous sorting of investments, companies began taking their money out of Quebec, because there were governments in Ottawa demanding that foreign capital not exceed 49%. What happened? These companies left us. Why? To set up shop in another country called China that is competing with us now. It is our own factories that we displaced that are now competing with us. That is serious. And that is attributable to governments that, to a certain degree, were so nice to everyone, governments that loved everyone.

Remember flower power? The Prime Minister liked to wear a flower in his button hole and to play football. He found that quite funny. It was flower power, and it was not serious. You see where it led us. They got us involved in such crazy systems that we are now grappling with them. We have a government that is attempting to fix their past mistakes. And very serious mistakes were made.

In 1984, the government of the day, Mr. Brian Mulroney and his team, decided to negotiate NAFTA, an agreement that would enable our products to go from Canada to the United States under a tax system and to transfer people without too much trouble. Do you know who was opposed to that? The Liberal Party. Once again, the Liberals were nice and cute. Each time, they expressed opposition. Why? Because the only province to benefit from NAFTA was Quebec.

For us, in the Beauce region, 80% of our goods cross the border in Jackman and are sold in the United States. The Liberals wanted to bring us down to our knees; that is what they wanted. We had such a serious problem that at one point, there was a change.

What do we have today? We have a government that they say they left with a surplus. They forget that we left them with NAFTA. It is thanks to NAFTA that they are making money today. That is why everyone has weathered the storm. If we had listened to them, we would not have NAFTA, we would have 10-foot high borders that we could not even cross. What would the good relations they had with the United States have given us? It would have led to never-ending squabbles with their president, and we would not even be able to go to the United States, because our Prime Minister did not like the president of the other country.

At some point, we really need to look at their record.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

There's no quorum.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

We can call quorum.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have no quorum. That's the rule. I'm sorry.

The meeting is adjourned.