Debates of Nov. 27th, 2007

Canadian Heritage

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the issue that I am talking about, the centralization of media in the hands of a few, the inability of the public to be allowed to experience a diverse series of ideas, is much more fundamental than any bill.

In fact, whether we are talking about justice issues, environmental issues, or health care issues, the ability for us to open up the doors to allow diversity in the media to enable all of us to do our job would strengthen the issues that my hon. colleague is talking about and all the other issues that we want to and ought to be dealing with in the House.

The centralization of media in the hands of a few is a much more powerful and important issue because it affects the pillars of our democracy. This lack of diversity undermines our democracy because it undermines the ability of elected officials to do their jobs.

So, if the member is talking about judicial issues, which are critically important to Canadians, or the environment, economics, infrastructure, health care, education, foreign policy, or our military, the ability for us to put forward the best solutions to these important issues gets to the heart of our ability to engage the public through a free and open media. I ask the hon. member to put pressure on his minister to enable us to do that.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague not find it amazing, if not offensive, to hear members on the government side calling into question the veracity of the vote that took place last night?

The Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage was talking about violent crime and how the legislation was not moving ahead. In this place last night, everybody but one person voted in favour of the bill. I just find it obstructionist because we are sitting here today talking about the serious issue of the failure of the CRTC to control monopolies in this country and its failure to prevent the Americanization of our culture through our news media and other aspects.

Is it not ironic?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the government is under orders to do certain things and so be it. I would hope that it would look beyond the narrow, gotcha type of environment that we have here. I would hope that all of us could look beyond criticizing one another on issues that people in the public really do not care about.

We need to put ourselves in the shoes of the most vulnerable people in our communities. We have to ask ourselves what they care about. What do they want? Let us ask ourselves how we can bring ideas forward to address their concerns. We have to ask ourselves how we can make this House work for the betterment of the public, for the folks who struggle day to day, sometimes living lives of quiet desperation.

We can do it. Let us get on with it. Let us make this place work better.

[Joe Comuzzi, Conservative, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is one area of my colleague's comments that I must question him about, and for clarification purposes only. He expressed the thought that the national press had adopted editorial policies that prevent members of Parliament from disagreeing or making their thoughts known. I wonder if my colleague would expand on that. Does it only involve one of the national media or are there others with the same policy?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail has informed me of that personally. All of us know that one editorial piece can be strewn around dozens of papers across the country. We also know there is cross control over different forms of the mainstream media between radio and television in particular.

The fact that there is such control does not serve the public well. One article by one journalist will be spread across the country which means fewer journalists are working, fewer ideas are out there, and fewer of our ideas are out there. That does not serve the public well at all.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased this morning to rise and speak to this motion because it is very indicative in some ways of where we are standing right now as a Parliament.

We had a scenario just a few minutes ago where the Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage came in the House, stood up and accused everybody of being soft on crime because of the fact that we were actually talking about the role of telecom and broadcast deregulations. He added that by not sticking to an extremely narrow focus of what a national government is, we are somehow allowing the punks to run wild in the streets, grabbing old ladies' handbags, that we are supporting kids tossing litter out on the sidewalks, and that we are not getting serious about mandatory minimums for furniture theft and bicycle theft.

This is the line that the government has pushed consistently since it was elected. It is fascinating that it happens just in the shadow of the debacle that we had in Africa this week, where the government shamed Canada on the international stage and said to the world that Canada was no longer there as a leader.

We had a national government there basically acting as a front for big oil, saying to the rest of the world, “You can suffer with climate change but the Athabasca tar sands are going to be allowed to be developed by a bunch of ecological freebooters”.

When our representatives return to Canada, we are supposed to maintain their narrow definition of government, a government that is not there for the national interests of Canadians, that is not there for the international interests. And if we dare speak out on the issues that are important to people in this country, the day to day business of Parliament, we are somehow soft on crime. That is a farcical position.

The only problem with it is that there is nothing funny about what the government has been doing. It is becoming more and more incumbent upon the opposition to stand up and oppose it at every opportunity until we can flush this government from this House and begin with a vision that will actually deal with the substantive issues that are facing Canadians today.

It is for this reason that I am pleased to speak to this motion because the issue of the role of the CRTC and its undermining by the government needs to be debated in this House.

We know, for example, that soon after forming government, the Conservatives sent the instructions to their delegation in the GATS talks in Geneva to begin an international plurilateral request at the GATS to strip telecom of any kind of regulations on telecom internationally. Telecom of course is the poster child for deregulation, but let us for a minute just talk about what telecom has done in this country.

In a nation that is so far flung, where we have large pockets of isolated urban areas and then massive rural areas, a national plan for telecom has always been considered primary in our national interests.

Has our telecom industry failed? No, we have some of the highest penetrations of rural regions in the world, much better than our neighbours in the United States, where everything is based on a profit line. We have some of the highest use of broadband in the world, so with a national framework policy on telecom, we have been able to serve our country. Have we served it as well as we should? No, but it really speaks to the need to have a national plan.

Canada is the lead nation pushing for the stripping of all foreign ownership on telecom, but at the same time, Canada is on the receiving end of a GATS request and audio-visual services that would strip all the abilities of a national government to maintain domestic content quotas, to maintain cultural quotas, and to maintain even language standards.

This is a major issue that needs to be talked about and the government has done everything it can not to talk about it.

Right now at the GATS, negotiations are underway that could strip our nation's ability to maintain domestic language, domestic cultural content, and in exchange it will allow again this group of freebooters its long term vision, which is to completely strip telecom.

When we ask the Conservatives a question on where this stands right now in the House, they jump up and scream that we are being soft on criminals and letting the punks run wild in the streets. That answer does not wash. The Canadian people need to know what is happening because the negotiations that are underway and that have been ongoing with the GATS process run counter to Canadian law. They run counter to the Telecommunications Act. They run counter to the rules of the CRTC.

We would end up with a scenario where, for deals that were made at the GATS, Canada would have to come back and say that this is now international trade law, we had no choice, we had to sign off and we will now have to amend our domestic law. We would have to change what is happening at the CRTC. That could happen without a proper debate in Parliament.

Therefore, certainly we have consistently pushed for these issues to be debated in Parliament before our trade negotiators are given any kind of mandate to sell out fundamental issues of national interest. One of the arguments we have heard from the government is that we should not worry, that we can put a firewall around our domestic content. We will allow the telecoms to be sold off willy-nilly to any large U.S. buyer, but we will somehow manage to protect ourselves and we will put in a firewall to protect our domestic content, says the government.

That is an absurd position and anybody who is in the industry knows it, because we have also at the same time been pushing for many years for convergence so that the people delivering our telephone service and cable service are now also the same people who are delivering our news.

The vertical integration in telecom and broadcast is so complete that it would be absurd to say that in any proposed takeover we would have a situation in which the buyers would agree to sever off the key aspects of some of their business portfolios, which are the news and the cultural elements. It is impossible to suggest that we could maintain Canadian content, a Canadian vision or a Canadian news service if we were bought up by a much larger U.S. partner. Even on the issue of telecom the question has to be asked: is there not a need to increase foreign capital? There has not been a single instance of any of our major telecoms even coming close to needing this.

We have a number of issues before us right now that need to be looked at in terms of the role of the CRTC. We have set up a situation that is good for industry. We have created a situation whereby industry has managed to survive and hold its own because we have had a proactive policy, a vision that comes out of the federal government and which we have maintained for a number of years.

For example, the broadcasters are in competition continuously, especially since most of our major urban centres are along the border. They are going head to head, night after night, with the major U.S. players, yet we have section 19.1 of the Income Tax Act, which allows our broadcasters protection in order for them to maintain a very profitable bottom line. Section 19.1 of the act gives our broadcasters about $300 million a year, moneys that they might otherwise lose to U.S. competition. For the specialty channels, it is upwards of $900 million a year.

The problem is that we have set up a system to encourage a domestic broadcast network, but we also rely on the CRTC to maintain a bit of a vision so that there is a quid pro quo. Right now, of course, we have a situation in which, after the 1999 changes to the CRTC Act, we have seen domestic Canadian content virtually disappear from the prime time airwaves.

More and more, what we are seeing now is simply simultaneous substitution, whereby U.S. programs are shown in Canada and our domestic broadcasters make money by showing Canadian chunky soup advertisements as opposed to American chunky soup advertisements.

Canadians have asked again and again why it is that if the broadcasters are being given a protected market, there is no protected market or even a market to guarantee even a small slice for our Canadian content, because television is extremely expensive to make. In Canada we have a market that is split two-thirds English and one-third French. It is split across the country. There has to be a national will in order to maintain a domestic voice.

If people are asked why they read newspapers, why they listen to radio, or even why they watch local TV, I think it is very clear that it is because they want their voices heard. What we are seeing now is this push for the mega-mergers, whereby one or two newspaper chains will buy up an entire district or one or two radio chains will have the entire district. They say they need that because more people are tuning out, but people are tuning out when they do not hear their own voices.

They are tuning out when they have regional newspapers, which have always been a cash cow for the large giants, that again and again cut their staff and staff requirements. There are fewer and fewer local voices and more and more canned editorials, so people stop reading, of course, because they know what is going to be in the paper. They are not seeing their kids' photos in the newspapers. They are not seeing the events at the local Legion or Lions Club, because there is simply not enough staff.

We have to lay down some ground rules. We need competition in the marketplace. This has been an issue in regard to culture for the New Democratic Party forever: we believe we have to give access to smaller voices in the market so they can maintain themselves.

Over the last number of years, we have seen a number of challenges to the way the CRTC examines takeovers. Many takeovers have allowed one or two groups to consolidate further and further in regional markets without much fanfare. We have had a couple of big ones with the recent CTVglobemedia attempted takeover and, right now, the Goldman Sachs and CanWest Global takeover of Alliance Atlantis, which is very problematic.

We need to remind the CRTC that it has the obligation to maintain a national vision, because we are in a situation whereby a U.S. investment banker basically is being asked to come in as a partner to buy up not just a major partner in a Canadian network but also the entire library of the Alliance Atlantis chain, which has become the depository of the Canadian film library for the last 30 years.

The library was created through public input. The money was put forward through various federal initiatives to support a domestic film industry, yet we are seeing a situation whereby Alliance Atlantis could be in a position to pick this up.

I asked the former Minister of Heritage during a late debate where she stood on this and what steps the government would take proactively, because this falls beyond the mandate of the CRTC. She said to me that the Competition Bureau would look after it, but it was not the role of the Competition Bureau to look after the future of the biggest catalogue of Canadian film and in fact the entire history of Canadian film. That was not within the purview of the Competition Bureau and it also was not within the purview of the CRTC, but the government was going to sit back and allow its so-called market forces to rule.

However, we do not have market forces in broadcasting and telecom. We have protected markets. We have allowed certain voices and certain players to consolidate and get bigger and bigger. If they are going to get bigger, then there has to be the obligation that they have to give back, that there has to be space within that market. Otherwise, we simply cannot function as a modern democracy.

The role of the media in a democracy is crucial. We only have to look at the United States to see how a war that was perpetrated on a lie was allowed to go through with the meek consent of the elected representatives of the United States because the media went in lockstep with the lie and never challenged it. Any voices that spoke out against the lie were basically sidelined or silenced.

We cannot allow that same situation to happen here. We need to maintain, first of all, a strong public broadcaster whose role is to define the terms of how we actually engage in public discourse. We need to support our domestic broadcasters so that they can compete but we also must say to them that we will work with them, that we will ensure they will not be simply rolled over by their larger U.S. counterparts, but that they have an obligation to put back into the system so the voices of the various regions of the country can be heard.

These are important issues. These are issues that need to be discussed in Parliament. The Conservatives can jump up on their desks and beat their chests all they want, but the fact is that the reality of our obligation as members of Parliament is to speak about these issues. The government has been notably silent about it and, more and more, we find that the decisions it is allowing to happen are happening behind the scenes.

There was the situation last year with the heritage minister holding a broadcast fundraiser put on by the broadcast industry two weeks before a major broadcast review. Average Canadians do not have that kind of access to policy changes. Parliamentarians were not given that access to potential changes in policy.

This is a government that is working very closely with a few key lobbyists and has a vision for stripping some of the basic infrastructure of arts and culture in this country. When one talks about arts, this is where it needs to be focused toward the end. For years we have undervalued the arts in Canada. We have not seen arts and culture as the important entertainment industry it is, but what we can do and have an obligation to do is maintain the infrastructure so that the arts can actually be heard and flourish.

As I said earlier, in order to do that we need a strong public broadcaster whose mandate is to encourage and ensure that voices from the regions are heard. We also need to have the CRTC play the role of balancing competing interests among the bottom line, competition from the United States, and also the obligation to ensure there is a diversity of voices.

If we do not set some ground rules in Parliament and participate in these discussions, we will see them continually winnowed away, as in the 1999 CRTC decision, for example, which had profound effects on Canada's domestic television industry. In fact, the whole cultural industry, which was flourishing at that time, has never quite recovered.

We also have to deal with the fact that the government, not through Parliament but through its trade negotiations, is undermining the necessary infrastructure that is in place right now to ensure we have a diversity of voices and also undermining basic obligations to ensure language and cultural content. These are issues that Canadians have supported consistently and look to their government to support. They need a clear message from Parliament to say that at the end of the day the infrastructure for culture and the diversity of voices must be maintained.

At this time, given the numerous challenges to the CRTC, it is incumbent upon the members of Parliament in the House to speak to this motion. I am very pleased that this motion is coming before us today. In fact, I would look forward to a motion tomorrow and the next day if we need it, so that we could actually begin to debate some of the substantive business of this country rather than this wrong-headed, silly and pathetic Conservative Party attempt to focus the entire nation's business on the punks running up and down the streets. The government is not dealing with many of the other issues that we need to deal with in this House.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP member just made my point, the point being that he sees any action on tackling violent crime as silly, wasteful and frivolous. When he spoke earlier, he minimized the whole issue of crime and violence against individuals, and even went so far as to say too bad, so sad. That is his quote. I find that really deeply regrettable. I do not understand that at all.

He knows full well, or at least should know, that under the Broadcasting Act the governor in council--in other words, the cabinet and the minister--is not able to issue a directive amending the interpretation of the policy in the first place. This motion is totally useless. This motion is totally vacuous.

This motion has nothing to do with anything except stopping the debate on tackling violent crime. Because if a directive can never be laid by the cabinet before the House for the heritage committee's consideration, I respectfully submit that we are just on a wild goose chase in debating this motion. This is an abject failure, with the opposition deciding it is going to try to obfuscate and delay debate on tackling violent crime. If those members cannot do it one way, they will do it another.

I have a particular difficulty with this, in that it seems to me I recall that the member stood and voted last night in favour of the tackling violent crime act, yet he stands up today and tries to delay for absolutely no reason. This motion has no value. It is vacuous and useless. Other than the member, the Bloc and the Liberals, why are we wasting our time trying to stop debate on tackling violent crime?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for at least 10% of that discussion, I was pleased the parliamentary secretary discussed the issue before us. As for the rest of it, he can kick sand at me all he wants in this little sandbox of Parliament. The fact is the behaviour of the Conservative Party has been somewhat frivolous and silly on this issue.

If he is so serious about the government's agenda, then why did it delay Parliament for three weeks this fall? Members of the NDP were all set to get back to work, yet the government did not want to sit. Now that it is huffing and puffing, we are all supposed to meekly go along with it. That is not my role. The Conservatives can flood ten percenters in my riding until the cows come home, but the people of Timmins—James Bay sent me to stand up when issues need to be debated, and that is what I am doing.

I noticed, for example, the member said nothing about the role of the government at the GATS or what it is doing with its behind the scenes, lobbying. It does not want the Canadian people to discuss it. It does not want this in Parliament.

The Conservatives want us to run after the kids who steal handbags. They know what is happening now. They are making substantive changes in how the entire regulatory framework of the country is going to be set up. Therefore, at the end of the day, it will be too late to have cultural discussions because they will have turned it over to their few friends, the few lobbyists in industry, and that will be the end of the story.

This is a substantive issue. I will continue to speak up on substantive issues and he can call me whatever he wants. It does not really make any difference to me. At the end of the day the people of Timmins—James Bay sent me here to fight for the issues that count.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech my colleague from Timmins—James Bay just gave, and I agree completely with him that we must protect Canadian culture, but I feel even more strongly about protecting Quebec culture and francophone culture, especially in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

I would like to comment on something my colleague from Timmins—James Bay said and ask him whether I am right. In particular, I would like to respond to the parliamentary secretary, who, by the way, never addresses the Chair, but speaks directly to the members. I just wanted to point that out.

On October 29, 18 artist and cultural business groups called on the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages to use her power to refocus the CRTC on its primary mission. When the parliamentary secretary says that the heritage minister does not have the right to intervene, this is not entirely true, because if the organization in question is not complying with the legislation that created it or the policy directions issued to it by Parliament, it is Parliament's duty to act and bring the organization into line.

There is another reason this debate is essential today. I have here 10 recent CRTC decisions. The stated objective of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is to reduce regulation to the essential minimum and rely on market forces wherever possible. I repeat: to reduce regulation to the essential minimum and rely on market forces wherever possible.

This means that, from now on, the CRTC does not want any more regulation. As my colleague said, the CRTC wants to allow almost anything from anywhere on our airwaves, and not necessarily content produced in Quebec, Toronto or the rest of Canada. As a result, just about anything produced just about anywhere will increasingly be allowed on our airwaves. This will kill both Quebec culture and Canadian culture.

Am I right in saying that?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. The present minister and the previous minister were caretakers for the government. They have done nothing to deal with the substantive issues before them, unlike the former minister of industry who was very bullish on intervening and laying down the rules for the CRTC, allowing full scale deregulation. Unfortunately, the government seems to believe that “culture” is spelled with a “k”. We see it here today.

Our job as an opposition is to speak up, point that out and remind Canadians that the only vision the government has for cultural policy in our country is to strip it and allow its friends in industry to get away with putting in the smallest amount and taking out the largest amount in profit.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay has been attacked for wanting to speak about the CRTC and this issue. I find it very rich, coming from the parliamentary secretary and his government, a government that refused to bring the House of Commons back when it should have come back. I wrote to the Minister of Industry, pleading that the House resume because of the loss of manufacturing jobs in my sector.

First, the Conservatives have their own internal issues that they should probably clean up. They know the Prime Minister's special adviser in the Middle East, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, is under investigation right now for electoral issues and improprieties. This is very important because their party has not addressed how they will that clean up. They took the member on and made him a special adviser and, at the same, time they allowed this to fester.

Second, a former Conservative prime minister, who was brought in to set up the government, has admitted to taking cold hard cash in envelopes from a German arms dealer to support his lifestyle.

These kinds of things are outrageous.

The CRTC issue is very important. Would the member for Timmins—James Bay talk about the way it can help and foster those in an industry, the arts and culture industry, that can be prosperous for Canada? Coming from a border community, we understand the necessary infrastructure to ensure that Canadian artists have a voice and use that voice in North America and abroad.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, Canadians should ask themselves why the government did not want debate in the House for a good month this fall. Nobody else gets to take an extra month off. The government seemed to be out there trying to help the Conservative Party in Ontario. Perhaps if it had stayed out two months earlier, it might have got him a little further than he got. However, it does raise the question of why we are here.

We are here to raise issues that are of substance to this nation. Every time we stand to speak in the House, we see this clown act from the Conservatives, where they run around screaming that we are not focused on being tough on crime.

This is the government that embarrassed us nationally at the Commonwealth talks. This is the government that comes from a party that says that Kyoto is some kind of socialist plot, that there is no such thing as global warming and that if we did anything about it, we would have to shut down all our planes, trains and automobiles and live like they did the Stone Age. The latest thing they are saying is that they are serious about it, but they are going to ensure it does not happen in their lifetime.

The failure of the government to deal with substantive issues has to be addressed. If one of those issues today is the attempt by the government, through surreptitious means and through trade deals, to strip our cultural infrastructure, then that is what we will debate. Tomorrow, I hope we have another substantive issue so we can continue to keep the government off its lowbrow agenda.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say just how sad it is for me today to rise and speak to this motion. When my colleague from Ahuntsic brought it before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the government members were fiercely opposed. That is what is so sad. Once again the government members, that is to say the Conservatives, want to control all that is said, muzzle the opposition parties, dictate what can be said and lead people to believe that there is only one way of thinking here in the House.

We had a good reason for deciding to introduce this motion before the House on this very day. In other areas as well, the government members want to preach only one way of thinking and push their own standpoints while trying to muzzle the opposition.

We learned recently that the Conservatives, with the Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment leading the way, have decided that no opposition members will go to Bali. Even though the opposition is in the majority in this House, they have decided to leave it behind, back here in Ottawa. We think that, both in the case of the motion being debated now and with respect to climate change, parliamentarians should be involved in developing all the policies put forward by the government.

When it comes to the environment, the Conservative government has simply proven itself incapable of proposing and implementing a plan for reducing greenhouse gases with absolute targets that would enable Canada to meet the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. However—need we remind the House—parliamentarians, especially the members of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, have suggested several ways of doing that. The minority government has just brushed these suggestions aside.

This is not the only issue where the government has decided to proceed unilaterally. I am thinking, for example, of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, where the government did not like what was being said very much and just decided to close it down. I am thinking as well of the elimination of the court challenges program. In the government’s view, the laws it promulgates should not be questioned because they are sacrosanct. That is not how things should be in a democratic system, as the witnesses who came before the Standing Committee on Official Languages told us. It was the same with the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Seeing my colleague from Laval reminds me of all of the changes made to the criteria for the women's program. The government is making it impossible for those who protect women's rights to do their jobs well. During a recent statement, my colleague from Laval had every reason to ask what good it does having 11 members from Quebec in government. My colleagues can find the clear answer in Hansard: it does no good at all.

A minority government cannot make all of its decisions unilaterally and force the opposition to keep quiet. That is why my colleague from Ahuntsic decided to table the following motion in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage:

That...any new directive to the CRTC from the Governor-in-Council amending the interpretation of the Broadcasting Policy for Canada or the Canadian Telecommunications Policy be first put before the House through the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for its consideration.

All we want is transparency. It is not complicated to submit new directives that would amend the interpretation of Canadian policy. It seems simple enough to me, but apparently it is not so simple for the member from Abbotsford.

I would like to read one of the objections to this motion that he raised at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage:

The problem is, virtually every decision or directive that the minister would make could be construed as affecting the interpretation of broadcast policy in Canada. So we haven't confined the scope of this in any way. In fact, this motion is so broad it would compel the minister to refer to this committee, or to the House, virtually every directive that he ever issues, whether it's to the CRTC, the CBC or whatever other crown corporation there may be.

Do members really think that, when public servants or the people in the minister's office draft a new policy directive or issue a new order, they do not realize—when drafting it—that it will substantially change the established order of things? Do they seriously think that, when the Minister of Industry announced on December 11, 2006, that telephone companies could set their own rates in areas where at least three phone companies were competing, he was not aware that he would be changing the role of the CRTC? It makes no sense. When a new guideline is issued, the author knows whether it will substantially change the way regulations are to be interpreted.

I will give just a few examples. Do members think that my colleagues from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and Abitibi—Témiscamingue did not feel the effect of this order in their communities? People awoke on the morning after with a new set of rules that would totally change telephone communications in their region. The order contains no provision for the relative size of the various telecommunications companies. It provides simply that, when three companies are competing, the new rules provide that market forces prevail. The people in these regions of Quebec affected by the new order were hard hit by it. There was no doubt in their mind that new guidelines had been implemented.

In any case, in a press release dated June 13, 2006, the minister set out the new line that would be followed. He said, “Tabling this document signals the government's intention to direct the CRTC to rely on market forces—” Because of this, because of the precedent created, Quebec's entire cultural community is quite justifiably upset.

If we want the players in the cultural community—those working on cultural content, those who broadcast it and those who promote it—to have the means to express our identity culturally, we must be sure that the framework established for their protection is respected.

Thus, on the very evening of the ADISQ gala, these organizations were quite clear in reminding the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages of her duties.

I would like to share what some people from the cultural communities had to say—because they are the ones we should be listening to—simply to remind hon. members of the importance of regulation in culture. In fact, we must ensure that culture remains a vehicle for our identity and that we have strong cultural enterprises and stakeholders here who can deliver this message and explain who we are as a nation.

Paul Dupont-Hébert, ADISQ president, said:

This reorientation of CRTC priorities goes against the Act, the CRTC’s mission, and the fragile reality of our cultural industries. The Act clearly obligates the CRTC to give primary consideration to the broadcasting system’s social and cultural contribution to Canada’s cultural identity. It does not ask the CRTC to become an agent of deregulation.

To that I would like to add the promotion of Quebec's cultural identity. Since this House had the pleasure of adopting a motion recognizing the nation of Quebec, it is clear that all of Canada's democratic institutions have recognized Quebec's new status.

Vincent Leduc, chairman of the Board of APFTQ, said:

Culture is not a commodity like any other. There is no such thing as a fair market for cultural works in an economy like Quebec’s or Canada’s. Without strongly applied cultural policies, our artists and our independent production companies are bound to be steamrollered by the foreign competition.

That is another reason why there needs to be strong regulation in our companies, so as not to lose sight of who we are and where we come from.

Raymond Legault, president of UDA, said:

In Canada, cultural policies form a whole that is altogether necessary to developing the talent of our artists. By removing one stone you threaten the entire structure. When the CRTC no longer strongly supports the policies under its responsibility, it sends a message that all of our cultural support framework can be called into question.

This is what we must do today: we must ensure that all of the mechanisms for supporting culture will not be jeopardized. That is why, today, we are calling on the government, which did not want to offer assurances in committee.

Everyone who earns a living from culture must make that culture a message, a treasure chest or collection of all the values and tools we can use to promote what we are, not only within our borders, but also outside them.

To conclude on this point, I would simply point out a factor that the coalition considers to be paradoxical.

As I said, I find it paradoxical and disappointing that Canada, which was in the forefront of the cultural diversity movement and was the first country to ratify the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, would be in this position today, when the very purpose of that convention is to provide legal protection for the right of states to make their own cultural policies. Today the CRTC—a central regulating body—is abandoning its duties with respect to the adoption and implementation of those policies.

This is indeed quite curious. Unless, perhaps, the government is telling us that the ratification of a convention like the one on diversity of cultural expressions means nothing, that it is just words, and Canada’s signature is worth nothing. In fact, we have seen this with the Kyoto protocol. The government had put its signature on the document and the current government decided to disregard that signature. They are not going to stop at one withdrawal, and that is distressing.

In closing, I would like reply to a few of the comments by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, who spoke in the House a little earlier and was asking how Quebec’s independence would strengthen the cultural identity of the nation to which I belong. Well, it is fairly simple. In the international bodies, when you have the right to speak, when you have a seat and you can vote, then you have a direct influence on what happens.

At UNESCO, if Quebec could rise and vote on its own, that would simply mean that the voice of Quebeckers would be heard in that international institution. That would allow Quebec to lay out its views, its objectives and its priorities clearly, in the case now before us, on the question of culture.

If Canada, which would probably be sitting beside Quebec, were of the same view, that would mean two voices instead of one, and it would make the common message stronger. On the other hand, if Canada were not of the same opinion as Quebec, then the two entities, the two countries, could express their views freely and separately, as is not the case at present. This majority francophone culture in the Americas would then have its own voice and the resources to define itself as such and to state clearly to the world that it intends to protect its culture.

Quebec has always been in the forefront when it comes to promoting the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Pierre Curzi used every forum and was an ardent promoter of that convention. It might be time for the federal government to think about giving back to Quebec all the powers— in fact, giving all those powers to Quebec, because it never gave them in the first place—with respect to telecommunications and broadcasting, precisely because, under the Constitution, culture is a matter within the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

It is time for Quebec to be able to establish a counterpart of the CRTC, a Quebec telecommunications and broadcasting commission. This is not a brand new idea. I am thinking of Louis-Alexandre Taschereau, who was calling for it in 1929.

With that, I thank all hon. members for participating in this very important debate.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes, for presenting the Bloc's position on the motion so well. That motion is unusual in that it allows us, in this debate, to show what differentiates the Bloc Québécois from those who believe in this federalist option.

To illustrate my point, I am going to go back to the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage, who pitted the Conservative government's repressive justice policies against our concern for culture, as if these two issues could be pitted one against the other. Everything relates to culture. For example, given their culture, the Conservatives have a profile showing that they care little about prevention and are primarily interested in repression. They care little about education, but a lot about prisons.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay mentioned it earlier. There are aspects of that culture that we do not share, such as, for example, a speech on repression that does not reflect the Conservatives' ethical practices when it comes to the government. We saw that under the Mulroney government. The Conservatives were ousted from office in 1993 and were left with only one member in Quebec, because their ethics were despicable, including for Quebeckers.

The same thing is happening now, following what occurred during the last election. The Conservatives are going after the Chief Electoral Officer, because of his decision to enforce the law in a way that affects them. This is absurd to say the least, and they have made a mistake once again. The issue raised by the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes is what distinguishes us as regards cultural practices, among others.

As for English Canadians, they too have their own cultural profile. It is no worse or better than that of Quebec. However, the culture that distinguishes Quebec and that shapes its personality is different. So, I would like to hear my colleague again on this issue. Is it not, indeed, a cause for concern when the government, based on the comments that we heard this morning, downplays the cultural issue in relation to its own preoccupation with justice?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase what our colleagues opposite say during oral question period, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his excellent question.

He is on the right track. I think that the government has a specific agenda, and a clear one at that. The question we have to ask ourselves about that program is whether it fits us like a glove or not. Are the priorities set out by the government the ones our constituents would like to see us address in this House? My hon. colleague is right in the sense that each nation, be it the Canadian nation, the Quebec nation or any other nation in the world, has its own culture. That is what makes the world a beautiful place. Having each our own specificities, foods, writers, actors, singers, rites and customs, that is what makes the world a beautiful place, and what we wish to preserve.

In a world governed by market forces, where trade borders are wide open, we would not want everyone to be identical. It would be so sad to find ourselves among people from different nations, but all speaking the same language and discussing customs that are all the same. What a waste that would be for humanity.

History is full of examples supporting the idea that, whenever empires take control, entire cultural sectors disappear. We must not forget that and we must make sure that, in this day and age when world trade is opening wider, we maintain this essential ability to preserve our unique cultural identities.

We need to remind the government of that. My hon. colleague from Chambly—Borduas is right: the government would have us believe today that it is not important to address that issue in the House. The fact of the matter is that it is urgent to have a debate on this and ask ourselves how our institutions, these democratic institutions we have established, built and strengthened over the years, can ensure that the incredible advantage of having unique cultural identities is preserved.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to take part in debate on this motion by the Bloc Québécois.

We are introducing this motion for adoption because we want to denounce the attitude of the government, which is refusing to invite representatives of the opposition parties to attend the United Nations conference on climate change that will take place in December in Bali.

It is our view that in a democracy all members of Parliament must be involved in developing government policy. It is really a denial of democracy. We have to insist that, in this House, all members, regardless of party, their riding or their office, have equal value. Each member has been elected by the public to represent them and to identify their needs. When they flout the right of members to speak about government policy on major issues, they are flouting democracy. For us, that is unacceptable.

In terms of the environment, the government has shown that it is incapable of proposing and implementing a plan that includes absolute targets for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. We know that if there are no targets and no obligation to meet targets, it is impossible for us to have carbon trading. Yet, carbon trading would have made a significant economic contribution, especially for Montreal, which is ready to play host to a carbon trading exchange.

Against the advice of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, the government has rejected the Kyoto protocol. In our view, once again, that is a denial of democracy.

In the issue that concerns us today, the matter of broadcasting and telecommunications policy, it is our view once again that parliamentarians have an important contribution to make. In this motion, we state that “any new directive to the CRTC from the Governor-in-Council amending the interpretation of the Broadcasting Policy for Canada or the Canadian Telecommunications Policy be first put before the House through the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for its consideration,” which is how it should be done; how the rules should be applied in a democracy.

The Bloc Québécois considers that the Conservative minority government is making use of the instructions, directives and decisions of the CRTC to weaken the regulatory framework in both telecommunications and broadcasting.

Besides, the strategies are lacking in transparency and in courage. We want to see any changes to the telecommunications and broadcasting policies made through legislation. Let them table a bill and it will be debated and amended by a parliamentary committee. By proceeding in this way, the government appears to be afraid of being defeated in its attempts to pass bills, In our view, that is a perversion of democracy.

Let us have a bit of background. We saw that on December 11, 2006, the former Minister of Industry made an order in council, which allowed telephone companies to establish their own rates in geographic areas where at least three telephone companies were in competition.

This significant measure reduces the influence of the CRTC which, for years, controlled the rates of former telephone monopolies such as Bell and Telus. Once again, this is a denial of democracy and truly runs counter to the advice of parliamentarians and even of many witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and were very critical of the minister in this regard.

Here are a few examples of what witnesses had to say.

On February 7, 2007, Yves Mayrand, a Vice-President at COGECO Inc., a very large company, stated:

First, let me voice our deep concern that political decision-making now appears to be the norm in Canadian telecommunications, taking precedence over quasi-judicial decision-making by the independent administrative body formally entrusted by Parliament with the job of ruling on telecommunications regulatory issues, including forbearance.

What I find most important in this quote is the mention of the independent administrative body. We would never think of negating the role of an ombudsman. In many areas, there is an on-going need for an independent administrative body. The reasons for the existence of these organizations are evident: to protect consumers and to ensure that the government has an interface where someone can look at the rules and make decisions. Thus, the independence of an administrative body, in this case the CRTC, is truly important.

Mr. Mayrand also said:

Third, the proposed order would immediately eliminate the incumbent telephone companies 90-day win-back restrictions throughout Canada, even where alternative local access services are still not available.

Why establish this order in council, which hinders rather than helps business, and why negate the role of the CRTC, this important advisory body?

Another witness, Chris Peirce, of MTS Allstream Inc., stated:

— the mere presence test is fundamentally incompatible with competition law. Nowhere else in the world, save in the now re-monopolizing U.S., would regulators consider deregulating an incumbent without looking at the actual state of competition in the market.

That raises a lot of questions and could potentially lead to legal action based on the Competition Act.

Why deregulate when so many have said it is a bad idea? That same witness was concerned about the legality of the proposed order, which would replace the CRTC's obligations under law with the mere presence test .

It is clear that regulation is necessary. I find it astonishing that a government that believes in law and order is deregulating this kind of thing knowing that we need regulations and order in our society to determine what role each element should play and what has to be done.

The government knows it has to regulate on three fronts: it has to set the terms and conditions, define activities undertaken, define accountability, and establish restrictions and administrative structures to ensure that ethics, rules and standards are correctly applied in a market as vast as the telecommunications sector.

Issues relating to this sector should always go through the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Furthermore, the House and its members deserve to be heard and respected because they are the ones who are in constant contact with the people and who have the ability to intervene.

All of this is making us very worried about the potential impact of deregulation on Quebec culture. We know how hard it is for Quebec to protect its culture and its language in this environment. We think that it would be best for Quebec to administer this important sector itself. Deregulation will certainly not solve the problem.

Therefore, we are asking the government to pay attention and respect the rights of parliamentarians to intervene in the best interest of the people. We think that Quebec culture is important, and we believe the government should protect it.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises an interesting point today in this House regarding culture. Most members will agree that all policies and directives issued by the government should be studied in committee. It is our role, as parliamentarians, to monitor the actions of the government. It seems to me that the least we can do, as members who wish to do their share, is to support this motion and ask the government to ensure that all policies that could have an impact on culture are studied in committee.

I would like to add something in a broader context. I would like to ask my hon. colleague something about culture. Even if the directives given to the CRTC on this important matter, which is vital to Quebeckers, are studied in committee, the fact remains that representatives from Quebec will always be in the minority within this committee. They will remain a minority in this Parliament and the minority will only grow smaller and smaller. We see this with the bill introduced by the Conservative government to weaken Quebec representation. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities bragged about this in a 10 percenter sent out in his riding.

Thus, in the medium term, by losing some control over its cultural policy, is Quebec not doomed to regress and to be left without all the tools it should have at its disposal, as a nation, to create a coherent cultural policy? Does my hon. colleague, who is a member of the same party and whom I know very well, have a solution so that, in the medium term, Quebeckers can take control of their development tools and use every means at their disposal to develop a cultural policy that reflects their culture and their interests and that will allow them to be masters of their own destiny in this area?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

We know that ultimately, the only way to properly preserve our culture is to have a sovereign Quebec. We, the members of the Bloc Québécois, know the problems we have in this House. We constantly step in to preserve the French language, to preserve our culture, and to try to show how we are different. Not a week goes by that we do not see a bill that interferes in our areas of jurisdiction. It is obvious that there is a lack of understanding on both sides.

So, in the medium term, until we become a sovereign nation, we must do everything here to ensure that, at the very least, Canada does not undermine the efforts Quebec has made to preserve its language and culture. Furthermore, the speed at which means of communication are developing also poses a danger to Canadian culture. It is more and more evident that this is becoming very dangerous, with all these television shows coming from the United States. In this respect, the rest of Canada is more fragile, and I think that if Canada does not want to become another American state, it should pay attention and take action to safeguard its culture, as Quebec is doing with its own.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the chance to ask a second question. That is surely due to the Conservatives’ indifference to our culture. I would like my colleague to tell us her position on the possibility of creating a Quebec telecommunications and broadcasting commission.

As far back as 1929, the Premier of Quebec, Louis-Alexandre Taschereau, adopted a broadcasting act in that province. It was only in 1932 that the federal government responded by creating its own agency to supersede the Quebec law. Looking back again into the past, on February 25, 1968, Quebec premier Daniel Johnson said:

The assignment of broadcasting frequencies cannot and must not be the prerogative of the federal government. Quebec can no longer tolerate being excluded from a field where its vital interest is so obvious.

In 1990 or 1992, when the current Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was the Quebec minister of communications, there was a draft Quebec proposal that said Quebec could determine the operating rules for radio and television systems, and monitor plans for the development of telecommunications networks, the prohibition of services, as well as the regulation of new telecommunications services. That is very similar to what the CRTC is now doing. It was said that Quebec could not leave the control of programming by electronic media within its borders to others and that to have control, Quebec needed to have full jurisdiction and only one regulatory agency.

Since the Conservative government has recognized the Quebec nation, I believe it must properly recognize the importance for that nation of controlling its cultural regulations. Should it not be working with the Government of Quebec, while we are waiting for Quebec to achieve sovereignty? As a temporary solution until sovereignty, should it not at least be working to implement a typically Quebec regulatory agency over which the nation of Quebec, as recognized by this House, would have full control?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the creation of a Quebec telecommunications and broadcasting commission with exactly the same powers as the current CRTC could easily be achieved through an administrative agreement, among other means. It would be important that the new Quebec commission, like the CRTC, operate through public consultations, but solely within Quebec. In that way, one could really focus on people's interests and concerns and adopt useful and fundamental measures for Quebec that reflect our uniqueness, the fact of the Quebec nation, of who we are and of what defines us.

I know that my colleague from Québec will speak at some length on that subject very soon; so I will stop here.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I would like to make a brief comment that also includes a supplementary question for the member for Trois-Rivières, who just spoke about the CRTC and culture in general. I would point out that my comment also follows on a speech made today.

Culture is extremely important not only to a people, but also to regions. I represent the region of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. The prospect of deregulation is frightening, quite frankly, for various reasons. The minute emphasis is placed on the economy instead of on culture, on differences and on promoting what is happening in a region, a community or a people, we fail in our mission on earth. One of the wonderful things about humankind is that we are all different. Around the world, great things come out of that difference. Every time we lose some of that cultural difference, we lose some of the cultural richness of our planet.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, cultural difference must be expressed, and it greatly enriches our world. I do not have the pleasure of coming from my colleague's very beautiful region; I come from the Mauricie region, from Trois-Rivières, which is defined as a city of history and culture. This is an indication of how important culture is to us. We have an international poetry festival and many artists in all areas.

It is true that culture is important. It is significant. It defines us. I was telling my son, who is an artist, that he has the best job in the work, because he can create beauty and bring people together. There is nothing more basic than that.

That is why Quebec culture is so important to us: it reflects who we are.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today in this House we are holding a crucial debate for Quebec. We are talking about culture and protecting culture. We are invited today to deliver speeches on a Bloc Québécois motion. I would like to read the motion so that those watching us can understand what this debate is about. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, any government initiative having a direct impact on Canadian telecommunications policy or Canadian broadcasting policy must be put to the House through the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for consideration.

What prompted consideration of this motion today was an order imposed on the CRTC by the former industry minister, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs and hon. member for Beauce. He is also here to defend the interests of Quebec, but through this order, the CRTC's regulatory framework is being weakened regarding telecommunications control. This lacks transparency and courage and in fact relies on such orders to weaken the regulatory framework of the CRTC. Instead of taking a legislative route—which would be the right way to go for such an exercise, since this measure tarnishes the Broadcasting Act—the government is circumventing democracy yet again.

The Conservatives want to control everything. They are ignoring the interests of the general public. They are bending the rules of the House, they are bending the law. This order, issued by the former industry minister, violates proper procedure. When one wants to change legislation, new legislation is proposed and various people affected by that legislation are asked to come to a committee to debate the issue. Then parliamentarians debate the issue here in this House. Eventually, the bill is passed or defeated. Then, if it is passed, the Senate approves or not.

So they do not want to take that approach. They have no use for all that. There are a lot of Conservatives here who were elected in the last election, especially in the Quebec City area. Where are they this morning? Where is the new Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Status of Women and Official Languages? She could be here debating with us and telling us how this new procedure will protect Quebec culture.

Parliament has recognized the Quebec nation, but there is a difference between recognizing it as a kind of folklore and recognizing its culture, how it expresses itself, the kinds of support that should be given to its culture, and the struggles it has endured over the years. I want to give the House a bit of the history. Today we are far from those struggles, with a highly federalist Conservative government that does not want to hear how these struggles relate to the debate at hand.

Why have regulations? Regulations provide a better framework for deregulation in the telecommunications sector. They are there to permit competition, but a healthy competition with some guidelines. What the Conservatives want now is to provide no guidelines for the unfettered deregulation of the marketplace. There has been a lot of criticism of this. Cultural circles in Quebec are very concerned. I do not know whether the minister is aware of all this criticism. I hope that she has met with these stakeholders and will correct her aim, but we do not hear her pouring forth her indignation over what the Minister of Industry is doing. I have been a member of Parliament now for 15 years and have worked on a lot of things. I even sat on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for three or four years and remember the debates between the industry and the heritage sector.

In those days we stood up for ourselves. We did not want the industry to deregulate telecommunications because of the effect it would have on culture. The Conservatives, apparently, never heard this message or it is just not one of their priorities.

What they want to do with this new order is ensure that the CRTC no longer controls prices, which seems very contradictory to us. The act says that as soon as there is competition, the CRTC must get involved. What they are doing is contrary to the act, which says that there must be regulations when there is competition. They are doing the opposite by telling the CRTC that it should abstain from regulating if the market is not competitive enough. There are a number of ambiguous points here.

A certain political party—a certain government—is not even complying with the Broadcasting Act and does not even have the courage to debate this here in the House. Thus it has had to issue an order to force the CRTC not to comply with the act and especially not to take any more steps to regulate the telecommunications sector.

This very conservative tactic of the Conservatives is meant to circumvent this House and stick a spoke in the wheels for people who might want to challenge the Conservatives’ intention of deregulating the telecommunications industry. That is the real face of the Conservatives when it comes to protecting culture.

Today, given how the new technologies are developing, we are well aware that a telephone is used for something besides talking or communicating between two or more people. It is also the messaging route. Telephone technology does more than just telephone. This is precisely because of the multiple nature of the new information technologies.

Quebec has no way of responding to this; it is passive, because the CRTC is under federal authority. How could Quebec bring some order to this? Quebec has no CRTC. In fact, the question was raised earlier of a Quebec radio-television and telecommunications commission.

I note that a colleague from my region was nodding agreement, or seemed somewhat skeptical. When you want to defend your culture, when you want to defend the culture of Quebec, you can recognize the nation, but you have to see what that means. You cannot just put on a show in the House. All of the consequences have to be there. With this order they could at least have been consistent with recognition of the Quebec nation.

Quebec therefore has no way of pursuing that course, of regulating that entire industry, of making rules for the telecommunications industry to encourage competition. They say that they want to encourage competition, that this is the Conservatives’ goal, but the route they are taking is dubious and is not agreed to by all of the stakeholders in Quebec, who are following this issue closely.

We would have liked to see a genuine debate between the industry and the broadcasting industry on this issue. However, we do not seem to have a minister who has the kind of courage it takes and who can impose his will.

I recall the debates we had in committee with the Liberal Party members on the issue of broadcasting and telecommunications. We certainly did not expect that the industry would fall into line and approve of deregulation with no rules, which could have a definite impact on the deregulation process.

I would like to draw the attention of this House to a few things said by Yves Mayrand, vice-president of Cogeco. He referred to a number of arguments that show that regulation is necessary and desirable in some cases. When you want to win the argument, it is easy to say that the Bloc does not want to have competition. On the contrary, we know very well that competition is in the public interest when it comes to setting prices for the consumer. Deregulation in the form that is desired, where competing companies would get a small market share or a single company would have a monopoly, would not represent the kind of balance that is desirable for the telecommunications industry.

Mr. Mayrand first expressed “deep concern that political decision-making now appears to be the norm in Canadian telecommunications, taking precedence over quasi-judicial decision-making by the independent administrative body formally entrusted by Parliament with the job of ruling on telecommunications regulatory issues, including forbearance”, as I explained earlier.

Mr. Mayrand went on to say:

As a result, independent fact-finding, proper evidentiary assessment, and due process have all taken a beating, in our view, with a resulting loss of trust in the due process.

Second, the proposed order is also at odds with basic principles of competition law, as it completely ignores significant market power and market share of the incumbent telephone companies where SMP still prevails.

I will now read the third objection raised by Mr. Mayrand:

—the proposed order would immediately eliminate the incumbent telephone companies 90-day win-back restrictions throughout Canada, even where alternative local access services are still not available. In practice, this means that in local exchange areas where Cogoco Cable has not been able to launch an alternative service yet due to facilities or interconnection constraints—and there are still a number of those in our footprint—the incumbent telephone company could immediately target in those local markets each and every new customer signing up for our alternative service with special and confidential offers, thus making it uneconomical for us to launch there.

As we can see, the competition largely ignores what already exists. It also ignores the vulnerability of certain businesses when it comes to developing markets either because they have no interconnection facilities or because the businesses are not yet in operation. This could result in raiding activities by the new businesses focusing on the well established clientele on the existing businesses, as Mr. Mayrand pointed out.

Mr. Mayrand goes on to say:

Fourth, the proposed order is at odds, in our view, with several recommendations of the report of the government's own experts, the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel, published less than a year ago, on the way to manage the transition to deregulation of incumbent telephone companies.

But more importantly, when will the government focus on a new Telecommunications Act, instead of rewriting the decisions of its regulator?

This question was asked by Mr. Mayrand himself. This is what the government is doing, this is what the former industry minister, the member for Beauce, and now Minister of Foreign Affairs, is proposing.

In addition, “the mere presence test is unworkably vague”, according to Chris Peirce, from MTS Allstream. He went as far as to say that the order “supplants the statutory obligations of the CRTC with the mere presence test”, adding that it infringes upon the Broadcasting Act, and the related regulations, which is supposed to come under the CRTC.

The government has always been looking to deregulate. The Liberals, too, wanted to deregulate. But the battle was being fought at Canadian Heritage, where culture was at stake. The purpose of culture is to protect content, but we know full well that, in the absence of control over what the content is in, content will be affected.

I would also like to come back to Quebec's desire to established what could be called a Quebec CRTC.

Establishing such a CRTC would not require reopening the Constitution, since we know very well that several opposition parties in this House would not agree to that. Nonetheless, it would allow the powers in that field to be transferred through administrative regulations. In fact, the CRTC could transfer its powers to the Quebec CRTC. Powers have already been transferred in the field of transportation as well as in connection with human resources initiatives. The law was not changed; through an administrative arrangement, the responsibility was vested in the ministers of Human Resources and Transport.

The Quebec CRTC initiative is a simple one in and of itself. It is designed to protect the diversity of sources and ensure a plurality of voices. Above all, it would guarantee a francophone content within the various technologies of today. Quebec is asking for the jurisdiction over broadcasting based on the fact that the message conveyed is first and foremost a cultural one, which falls under provincial jurisdiction. If Quebec is asking for it and the other provinces do not, it is because we feel that our culture is threatened.

During my time on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, we prepared a report of over 1,000 pages. I recall the member who presented it. She may now be named. It was Liza Frulla, who sat as a Liberal. She had entitled it "When Cultural Sovereignty is Threatened". At the time, I found it somewhat hard to swallow, but then I said, why not? She felt that cultural sovereignty was threatened, as the title put it, and I wondered, why not us? Our cultural sovereignty is doubly at risk. I recall the complementary opinion we wrote in connection with this report of the House of Commons. We explained the fight of all Quebeckers. It is not just sovereignist. People who consider themselves nationalist fight as well, a fight not just obtusely aimed at federalism which does not give Quebec culture the wherewithal to better, more carefully and quickly manage its various avenues.

The government says the Supreme Court deemed this jurisdiction federal. The areas go beyond the borders of the provinces. Since 1929, Quebec has called for jurisdiction over broadcasting, since the message transmitted is a cultural one. I recall certain political players. In Quebec, Taschereau voted for legislation on radio. In 1932, the federal government established its own broadcasting legislation, which it called the Canadian act.

I see a smile on the face of a Conservative member elected in my region. It is all very well to laugh, but the current Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities had, at the time, prepared a bill in this regard. The funniest part is that this member is sitting in this House today, and what is he doing to protect communications? He did not call for a Quebec broadcasting commission. When he was minister of communications in Quebec, he called for—as did Liza Frulla-Hébert—the return of these powers to Quebec. Now, today, sitting in this House among the ultra federalists, he has forgotten what he said as minister in the National Assembly. The same can be said for Liza Frulla—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. We now move to questions and comments. The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by congratulating my colleague from Québec for her speech, which provides us with clarification on one important element, concerning management of the information media as a political responsibility. She has raised the issue of content and their vital importance as far as culture is concerned.

This morning, Conservative and Liberal members made the point that governments had invested in culture, including in Quebec. It was as if they were putting a price tag on culture. If we have managed to invest in culture, then we can feel we have a clear conscience, have done our duty. The real duty when it comes to culture, which I would describe as a nation's identity or political personality, is to ensure that we can determine its content. This means that the nation next door must not do that for us. We must be able to do this ourselves, and that is what our colleague from Québec has pointed out.

Our colleague is drowning in a sea of Conservative members, elected to power by claiming they were going to defend Quebec's interests. Since she is best placed to tell us, since she is in the front line and at the heart of Quebec, while surrounded by Conservative Quebec MPs, can she tell us what they have done for culture in the past year and a half ?