Debates of Nov. 27th, 2007

Canadian Heritage

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what have they done for culture? Just debating this question this morning shows what they have done about culture. What have they done, outside of providing funding for a number of festivals? They have an area of jurisdiction, they have the spending power and there is more money in Ottawa, so it is perfectly normal for there to be an impact in the various regions of Canada and Quebec. But it cannot stop there.

The question this morning has to do with the framework for regulation within the telecommunications sector. Regulation would weaken the desire of Quebec to defend its culture through the vehicle of communications. We would not be in charge of managing quotas or ensuring that messages were more closely monitored and more representative of Quebec culture.

There is an obvious paradox between recognition of the nation of Quebec and recognition of the culture of Quebec. When I sat on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, reference was made to such things as the anglophone and francophone markets. A francophone market is not what it is. If Quebec is recognized as a nation, then reference must be to the Quebec market. The Conservatives on the committee have not, for example, acknowledged the existence of the Quebec film industry. They acknowledge a francophone cinema. That is why we say that recognition of the Quebec nation is nothing but an empty shell. When, in committee, we call for recognition of the Quebec film industry, this Bloc Québécois initiative is turned down.

I have delivered a number of messages to the MPs in my region, including the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou and I hope she will be able to pass them on to her party, if she has properly grasped what is at stake. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, she must have considerable power.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague from Quebec City that it is probably a waste of time sending messages to the member in question. We better just forget that.

I would like to return to two aspects of her remarks I consider very important. What the Conservatives are in fact doing is stripping the CRTC over time of pretty well all of its regulatory powers over telecommunications. However, their aim, from what we hear, is to permit increased competition in the areas of culture and telecommunications.

In the area of culture, competition is already fierce. We have to understand what this competition means. Films compete with theatre, which in turn competes with television, and so on. All forms of culture are competitive at the moment. Any claim that there is no competition and that deregulation is essential, as for example in telecommunications, is totally crazy.

I would like my colleague to speak to this, as competition is absolutely fierce in the area of culture. In Quebec, for example, cultural output is prolific, and people have a choice, especially in the major centres. Things are somewhat different in the regions, and people may find it more difficult there. But cultural offerings are widely available and are bound to be increasingly so. That is the wish of the people who oversee cultural output.

I would like my colleague to return to, among other things, the matter of telephone service, because deregulation in this area has a major impact on the regions. This is being said everywhere, and she was present at our meeting in Rimouski where seniors told us that the telephone is vital for them and that deregulation could mean an increase in rates they might not necessarily be able to afford.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, with regulation, we see an increase. There are ceiling prices and floor prices. However, given the minister's order, deregulation will be uncontrolled. If competition becomes too fierce, there will be no one to cap prices, and they will be tempted to do that.

We may be sure that in the beginning perhaps the consumer will get fair value but we know very well that once an industry is established, the people in the industry agree among themselves and prices go up and up. There is then no longer any way to control price increases.

Before closing, I want to make a personal appeal to the new Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Status of Women and Official Languages, who is from the Quebec City area. She has received a very clear message from everyone. There is a coalition of all the stakeholders in Quebec. I will not name them all, but there at least ten groups and they are upset. A spokesperson for this coalition emphasized that the regulatory drift of the CRTC has increased in recent years but it dates back as far as 1999, and they are calling for it to stop. Moreover, we are being told that the rapid growth of technologies has left our cultural policies out of date.

We know very well that the spectre of new technologies is a false argument, because technologies are only a vehicle for a cultural message. That is where any new initiative for regulation of the telecommunications industry should be focused.

Instead of abusing the democracy of this House, why do they not introduce a bill? We would then learn what all those stakeholders in Quebec and other people think. Indeed, if there is a Canadian culture to protect, we would also like to here that. In the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, we used exactly that approach on the subject of threatened cultures. If Canadian culture feels threatened, perhaps we should be asking questions about Quebec culture. Is it not legitimate to think that it is also threatened and doubly so because we want to keep that culture?

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this motion. I suppose that the debate on it will end soon.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage when it studied the role of television and especially CBC television in the 21st century, when it debated the Canadian Television and Cable Production Fund, and when we made changes to the name and orientation of the CRTC. I had the pleasure and honour, therefore, of touring around Canada for the hearings that the committee held. Today I would like to tell the House a bit about what happened at these hearings and say that we should show some respect for the committee members by taking their work into account. We should also show some respect by allowing them to present the results of all the consultations they conducted over nearly a year and a half.

I agree with the motion introduced today by my colleague from Ahuntsic. When it comes to the interpretation of Canadian policy on broadcasting and telecommunications, we should be able to submit changes to the House by way of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We cannot simply overlook or disregard all the expertise that the members of this committee accumulated in the course of all their deliberations over a year and a half.

The minister and parliamentary secretary cannot simply ignore everything that was said at these hearings and all the work that the committee did. I might say in passing that throughout the entire tour we made across Canada, there were two members who were always present for all the hearings. They were the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay and me.

The parliamentary secretary did not show up even once, whether in Yellowknife, British Columbia and Toronto. He was never there. So far as I know—and people can check—the Conservative members on the committee at the time seemed to change quite often. It was a crying shame to see their lack of interest in the hearings of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

In nearly all the major cities we visited where we had the opportunity to discuss cable television and telecommunications, we heard from communities seeking our protection, wanting the assurance of continued service and not wanting to be at the mercy of foreign interests. I would remind hon. members that, when we discussed the Canadian Television Fund, Shaw Communications came up. This is a Canadian company that wants to draw heavily on U.S. programming. In committee, Shaw told us that Canadian English programming was boring and that they were in business to make money. According to them, making money requires U.S. programming. The committee records will show this.

At the time of the discussions on the Canadian Television Fund, we knew there had been an agreement in place between Shaw Communications, the CRTC and the minister to the effect that Shaw Communications would continue to make these monthly payments, but there was an agreement that has never been totally revealed.

It is my suspicion, in fact, having sat on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, that the act of deregulation, of opening the door wide to American culture through cable distribution companies such as Shaw Communications, is not totally dissociated from the agreement entered into with that company.

With the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage we toured Canada in order to meet with members of francophone communities outside Quebec, in particular those in Yellowknife, Vancouver and Manitoba, as well as with aboriginal communities. They were all extremely surprised to learn that U.S. culture was coming into Canada freely, via radio and television stations, and that no effort whatsoever was being made to protect this Canadian culture. As a Bloc Québécois member, I called upon them to react, to do something, because they were getting stabbed in the back by their own government's desire for deregulation, which would lead to their losing jobs, though they did not realize this yet. It must not be lost sight of that Canadian culture creates thousands of jobs, especially in television program and dramatic series production, on top of all the others that depend on culture. Thousands of jobs are at stake.

Here in Quebec, we are relatively protected. We have Vidéotron, which findings show has helped us tremendously in disseminating our Quebec culture. However, for people living in the rest of Canada, their culture is based on the culture of the French Canadians. They have so little culture that they had to borrow our woollen sash, our national “Rocket”, our Canadian horse, and even our maple syrup, to create their own culture. They have so little culture or ideas that they are now leaving the door wide open to American culture, with programming that is always shoving crime down our throats. And speaking of crime, to get back to Bill C-2, and I am speaking to the parliamentary secretary here, we might reduce crime if we paid attention to Canadian culture.

This is all just a big show today, for the simple reason that it is not something new. For a year and a half, the attitude of the ministers and members, the government members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, have demonstrated how little importance they place on culture. To them, culture can be bought and sold, and in any event there is no Canadian culture. As for Quebec culture, that is not important and we must not talk about it.

When I have travelled in other Canadian provinces, in other countries, I have told people that Quebec was a nation and that it had to protect its culture. I told them that in Quebec, we were lucky because we long ago joined forces.

I do not understand how Canadians in the other provinces can not have seen what this government is up to, buying American culture or being prepared to let it in. They have made an agreement, that is clear.

I would like to point out to all Canadian citizens that they can look this up in all the debates of the House of Commons and the committee. They will realize that they are being had.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 18 and 76 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 18

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

With respect to the Community Access Program and School Net programs: (a) what was the total planned and actual spending for each program in each fiscal year since their inception; (b) for each case in which spending was reduced from one fiscal year to the next, (i) how does the government account for the reduction, (ii) which organizations received reduced funding and how much less funding did each receive; (c) for the current fiscal year, (i) how many applications were received, (ii) how does that number of applications compare to the number of applications received in the past two fiscal years, (iii) how many applications were approved, (iv) how does that number compare with approved applications from the past two fiscal years, (v) listing all recipients, who was approved for funding in the current fiscal year, with approved funding amounts in dollars, (vi) listing all recipients, who received reduced funding this fiscal year compared to last fiscal year, what was the amount of the reduction and what was the rationale for the reduction, (vii) what impact has the reduced funding had on the recipient in each case; (d) does the government intend to renew funding for those programs beyond the current fiscal year; (e) when will the government make public its intentions regarding the future of these programs; and (f) what is the precise process for making a decision on the future of these programs and communicating that decision to the public, and which stage in that process has the government currently reached?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 76

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

With regard to the record low water levels of Lake Superior: (a) what is the lake's average water level by year, dating back to when records were first kept; (b) how does the government scientifically account for water levels being the lowest since 1926; (c) what studies and evaluations into Lake Superior's water levels have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by the government and (i) what individuals, department, or organization undertook these studies, (ii) what is the cost of these studies, (iii) what are the findings and recommendations of these studies; (d) how is climate change affecting the water levels of the Great Lakes, including Lake Superior, and are there studies completed or now underway in this regard and, if so, what are they and what are their findings; (e) what strategies has the government developed to deal with dropping water levels; and (f) have any agreements been struck in the export of bulk water from the Great Lakes and are any negotiations underway?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

moved that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will be keeping my remarks shorter than my allotted time for the simple reason that Canadians have already witnessed what took place in the preceding time.

The bill we are debating passed last night by a vote of over 200 to 1 and yet today the Bloc is delaying passage at third reading. I implore all members of the House to ensure a speedy passage of our government's tackling violent crime act.

There is no greater responsibility for us as parliamentarians and for the Canadian government than to protect the most vulnerable in society. Canadians from coast to coast and probably in all of our ridings have demanded changes to the criminal justice system to better protect victims, to better protect innocent Canadians and to better protect all of us from criminals, those who prey on other individuals, which is why we introduced Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act.

This bill has been thoroughly reviewed by a committee. It is made up of five different components, most of which were thoroughly considered in the last Parliament and, in this Parliament, the bill was thoroughly considered by a committee and voted on by this House.

The bill tackles the dangerous offender provisions in that it would make our streets safer from those who are the most serious offenders, those who have shown an appetite for repeat violent offences, for recidivism, the very worst of the worst offenders of a violent or a sexual nature.

The bill also addresses gun crimes, bringing in mandatory minimum sentences for those who, in the most serious of cases, use a firearm to commit an offence. I think we should all agree that we need to send a clear message and take seriously gun crimes. Canadians are telling us to do this.

Another component of the bill that we have been hearing from coast to coast in cities across Canada is reverse onus on bail for those who are charged with a gun crime. Too often a serious crime is committed with a firearm and the person is out on the street in a very short period of time awaiting trial. In many cases, the person finds a victim at the local convenience store. Obviously, that shocks the victim and it should shock all of us. We need a reverse onus on bail for gun crimes.

We need to give our police the tools they need to tackle impaired driving, drug impaired driving and to use new technologies to the greatest benefit possible to make our streets safer.

It is also important that we raise the age of protection. It is unbelievable that this was not done over a decade ago. The previous Liberal government always refused to raise the age of protection even though victims' groups and child advocacy groups implored the Liberals to do so in order to protect children. This bill takes action. This bill does so.

Our constituents are asking us to take these measures without delay to make Canadian streets safer. I am asking all parliamentarians to look at the record of what has been done and look at the work that has gone into this bill, the tackling violent crime act. I ask each member to consider the safety of our streets, our communities and our children and to pass this bill as quickly as possible from this place. I also ask the senators to not allow, as we saw in the last Parliament, our criminal justice legislation to be bogged down in the Senate but to allow for a quick study and quick passage of what is a very important bill that is long overdue.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the other side said that the bill was bogged down in the Senate. I just want to set the record straight. Of the six bills that were not passed by the summer break, four reached the Senate but only in May, and two reached the Senate in June. It was impossible for the Senate to pass the bills in a matter of a couple of weeks at the most.

Therefore, It is really not correct to say that these bills were held up in the Senate. The member's government prorogued Parliament and the Senate did not have any time to deal with these bills.

Would the hon. member agree that the record shows that of the six bills the government had on justice in the last Parliament, four went to the Senate but only at the end of the session and that his government prorogued Parliament?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, what I will confirm for the hon. member is what we all saw, even in this House, where our Prime Minister and our justice minister called on the leader of his party, the leader of the Liberal Party, to encourage senators to stop delaying our criminal justice legislation.

It is a matter for the public to see. The public can see the Debates of the Senate just as they can our Debates. They know that these various bills and previous criminal justice bills were delayed in the Senate for literally hundreds of days, away from the eyes of Canadians and away from the debate that takes place in this House which is the most accessible to everyday Canadians.

Canadians are sometimes under the misconception that when a bill passes the House of Commons then it becomes law but in fact it does not. It goes to the Senate, which is where the leader of the Liberal Party refused to, or was unable to, encourage Liberal senators to give swift consideration and passage of the criminal justice legislation.

It brings into question a broader issue. It is not only acting swiftly now but why now? Why is it that over the last decade action was not taken to get tough on people who commit gun crimes? Why was action not taken in the face of pleas from city mayors and from provinces to introduce a reverse onus on bail? Why was there no action taken on raising the age of protection where Canada had a lower age of protection than other jurisdictions?

We do not know why the Liberal government that preceded us was so ineffective in addressing criminal justice issues. What we do know is that our government has been very aggressive. It has taken its clear direction and marching orders from the Canadian people who have said that they want to have a criminal justice system that works, that they want to get tougher on individuals who are recidivists and who are increasingly becoming the problem, that they want to provide opportunities for those who want to get out of a life of crime, and that they want to provide opportunities for those who are addicted to drugs or to alcohol. We are doing all those things. We are bringing in measures to the Criminal Code to update the code to better protect Canadians. I do not know who could possibly be against that.

The one thing Canadians are telling us to do is to get on with the work that we need to do, which is what I am hoping all members will do with the tackling violent crime act.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I hope he will listen to me very carefully as well.

I have a problem with the bill. Yes, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. Nonetheless, two things bother me about it. Will the government address them?

My first point is this. Does the government realize that it is not by passing tougher laws with minimum sentences that we are going to reduce crime? Does the government realize that getting out of prison, not going to prison, is the problem? Convicts do not serve their entire sentence. That is the problem. Does this government realize that? Is this heading anywhere?

Since I do not have enough time to ask another question, I will go on to my second point, on former Bill C-32. The parliamentary secretary knows that I sat on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. As a criminal lawyer, I have one question: do we have the tools? In fact, does the department have the tools? Do the police have the tools to detect whether drivers are impaired by drugs? That is the problem with former bill C-32. Now, it is being lumped into Bill C-2. What is going to be done? Is there anything planned? Has anything been implemented or do we have to adopt the bill to see what happens?

I will close by saying that my primary concern is whether this government understands that getting out of prison, not going to prison, is the problem. Criminals are released too quickly. That is what people are complaining about.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's question. This has always struck me. In the last election campaign, the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party called for an increase in mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes. The parties said to the voters that if they elected them, they would bring in mandatory minimum penalties for those who committed a crime with a firearm.

In fact, the Liberal platform called for a doubling of the mandatory minimum penalties, which in some cases would have resulted in an eight year mandatory minimum penalty. However, Canadians have learned not to believe what they hear from the Liberals.

After the election, when we brought in a bill to bring in mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes, all we received was obstruction and opposition from Liberals on what we had proposed. It was in effect an incremental change, moving from a four year minimum to a five year minimum on a repeat offence. Someone commits a crime with a firearm is caught by the police, is convicted in a court, is sentenced, serves some time, then gets out and commits another crime with a firearm. Who could argue that this individual should not receive a tougher sentence?

I will address the hon. member's other question dealing with drug recognizance experts. We have put it in place what is necessary for police officers to have the tools they require. Police asked us for the legislative measures contained in the bill.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for bringing forth Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act. My constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country have specifically supported our position with regard to the age of consent to look after the youth in our community.

As a member of city council for nine years prior to being elected in January 2006 to the House, I know our mayor and council had sent several letters to the previous Liberal government, but it did not get the job done.

Why did the opposition not support it in the past and why is it stalled in the Liberal dominated Senate? The fact is the bill has been debated and we need to get it passed. Canadians have asked for it and the time has come.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his work on behalf of his constituents on justice issues.

On the issue of the age of protection, I cannot answer for the negligence of the members opposite over their 13 years in government for not passing legislation that would raise the age of protection so our most vulnerable, our children, would be protected from adult sexual predators.

We know that groups such as Beyond Borders and child exploitation groups are advocating for the protection of children. For years they have been calling on us to raise the age of protection. This bill does that. Let us get on with passing it.