Evidence of meeting #132 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was arr.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC
So, we're on the main motion as amended.
This is really our committee's responsibility. I've been on this committee on and off for years. This is the primary responsibility of the CRTC, and in every news article for the last year, whenever there has been a discussion about telecommunications breakdowns in the event of a natural disaster and emergency, the CRTC has been the primary spokesperson.
On May 7, the countrywide emergency public alert system for mobile devices broke down, failed in Quebec and was a problem in Ontario. Who was the chief spokesperson for the Government of Canada? It was the CRTC. On September 25, 2018, the CBC website said, “Didn't get the tornado emergency alert? It could be your phone”. CRTC was the primary spokesperson. On September 30, CBC said, “Residents question lack of communication” during the tornado in Ottawa. The chief government spokesperson was from CRTC.
This is our committee's responsibility, because the CRTC falls under our purview. It's not Public Safety that's responsible for the oversight of the country's telecommunications and mobile systems networks. It's our committee, because we are responsible for the CRTC. Public Safety is not the lead on this issue. It's our committee. It's clear in every single news article about the breakdown last May in the newly introduced emergency public alert system, and with the incidents that happened here in the city of Ottawa several weeks ago, that the CRTC is the primary lead on this within the Government of Canada.
Therefore, our committee is the primary committee of some 24 committees of the House of Commons that is responsible for looking at these sorts of questions.
5:35 p.m.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
I really appreciate that intervention by Mr. Chong, but if things are going to change, it's going to be because we find out what the current capacity is, review what the experiences are, and then decide for ourselves and make recommendations to government. Now, whoever ends up implementing that, whether it be Public Safety, Transportation, Infrastructure or Industry, specifically through Minister Bains' office, that will happen at that point.
I would simply point out that Dane has made it his job because he had constituents ask about it. I make it my job not just because there are constituents asking about it, but because we have an opportunity and a role here to lend two meetings to an important issue. We don't necessarily have to solve every problem, but we might want to take a look under the hood and see what's there. That's what is being asked for here.
To try to spin it that this is someone else's responsibility.... We are responsible for this committee. This is our committee. This is our work. We're here to try to do what we can for constituents. Then we can make recommendations to government, and they can look at those recommendations and find out whether or not they are appealing to them.
I would just encourage all members to support this, because we are making it our issue. People are depending on it. There is an expectation that this is what we are paid to do.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If you're not sure, you can actually go to the CRTC website. Under “Emergency alert messages and the national public alerting system”, it describes CRTC's responsibility.
It lists the providers that are participating in emergency regulatory systems. It's everything from numbered companies to Access, AEBC Internet, Bell, Bell ExpressVu, Bragg Communications, Cogeco, Nexicom Communications, Northwestel, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw, Shaw Direct, Telus, Tbaytel, Vianet and Vidéotron. It goes on and on. There's more than just that. It actually provides a map you can look at with regard to how the CRTC works with the different service providers, in terms of providing an actual physical footprint. There is no debate about it.
You can just go to CRTC, if you need it: crtc.gc.ca. There's a whole section about that and the process for the alerts, and how it actually involves not only these providers but radio and television as well—the other traditional broadcasters.
You're right, Mr. Chair. We have adopted other motions, but if we're going to be basically completely stuck in copyright alone and not have any breathing space for these types of things, it's not really healthy.
We've had a good run here. I don't think this is an unreasonable request. I have called them out in the past when I've seen stuff brought here that I thought might be politically motivated or have some type of bias. This is a sincere approach to dealing with an issue that touched us all. I saw commentary from all political parties about it. I saw some good comments from the minister about it, with regard to what he's going to do. The minister actually validates this through his public commentary, which you can visit on many CBC sites, with video and other types of interviews that were done. He's actually getting involved in this.
It's an incomplete story. This is a helpful process. That's why I proposed the amendment.
The mere fact that the subamendment was agreed to shows an openness. It's not just them digging in on their particular motion. They've adopted the amendment to accommodate a fair concern that might be expressed about timing for everything. I'm really hopeful that we can actually get this passed and go on to some meetings that would be very helpful and do something worthwhile. I just don't understand why we would miss the opportunity that is in front of us. One of the biggest challenges I've seen in this place over the years is the missed opportunities.
Mr. Chair, with your leadership and the way we approach these things, we can actually have a couple of good meetings that will at least provide some public information that is really helpful for people.
We can characterize the Ottawa weather.... You've seen smaller and larger disasters, but there was real human tragedy and suffering that took place. I've seen it in Leamington as well, where Dave Van Kesteren represents the Chatham area, and there are other places.
It's important, too, because if we find something in there, it would be a good time for the CRTC to educate the public about what to do. It's a really great, strong opportunity to come and actually be here in front of Canadians to talk about the emergency preparedness situation that the CRTC has, and get it out there.
It's not about casting blame; it's not about pointing fingers. It's about what happens next. If we are unprepared as a country.... Maybe there are things being done that we don't know about yet, that are going to happen. That could be in the mix of things. If there aren't, then we need to decide that as parliamentarians.
I would just finally conclude by an appeal to keep the structure of this committee, which I think is its backbone, and when there are reasonable things brought forth, to engage in them without compromising our principles and get stuff done.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
That's not helpful, Mr. Chong, to this.
I'm being neutral, here.
There's no reason for the whip to be involved in this. That's not the way this committee works.
This side has presented its case, and you have presented your case. The question then becomes, where do we move from here?
5:40 p.m.
Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC
Mr. Chair, that was a private comment that I made to my colleague here. I did not expect that other people on the opposite side would overhear it—
5:40 p.m.
Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC
—but I will state it on the record. I think it's a problem that whips' office staff, on both sides, are present to direct members of Parliament. I'll go on the record to say that, and I will defend that publicly.
I do think it's a problem in our parliamentary committees that the whips' offices in all parties direct members of Parliament on these committees to do things all the time. I think it detracts from our ability to provide our oversight function as a committee. That's why I've long believed that the whips' offices should not be directing members of Parliament, regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on.
I also believe that it's long time that the leaders' offices and whips' offices no longer decide who gets appointed to these parliamentary committees. I think it should be a secret ballot vote so that these committees could be more autonomous and can better execute their parliamentary function in holding government departments and agencies to account.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
We're here to debate the motion, and that's what we've been having as a debate. You may not all agree on it, but that's what we've been having. Both sides have presented their case.
At this point, if there are no other people who want to contribute to that debate, we'll move forward with a vote.
Again, there are two sides to this story. I know we don't all agree on things, but I think we've had a debate on this issue.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Absolutely.
(Motion as amended negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That's all we have to say for the day.
I thank you all for staying around and actually going through the motion. We'll see you all next week.
The meeting is adjourned.