Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2012

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, free trade is fair trade. With respect to the member's concern about labour co-operation, there is a labour co-operation agreement that contains strong and enforceable provisions to protect and promote internationally recognized labour rights. These measures are entrenched in this as well too.

Is it perfect? No, it is not perfect. If we look at what labour laws are in a lot of the developing countries, they have a long way to come. The way to do that is to encourage them, trade with them and, through the labour unions here, show them how by exchanging ideas. Ultimately, when we continue to grow that trade flow and as economies continue to grow, then we can continue to better the lives of those very people who the hon. member is talking about. Those opportunities would be gained as they have opportunities as well to trade with us.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although we have lowered corporate taxes and are making reforms in immigration, trade is one of a number of arrows that we can use to make Canada strong and create jobs.

I was wondering if the member would comment a bit on some of the things we are doing, besides trade, to encourage people to work, to create jobs and to make Canada a strong place to be.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, there is a fundamental difference that oftentimes gets played out in debate. I recognize and understand that we will not always agree but on this side of the House we believe in something that is known as the unguided hand. When opportunities arise, people take those opportunities and act on them and, subsequently, wealth is generated. That is not something that is dictated or centrally planned. It is something that just flows naturally out of a free market society. When we continue to move in the direction of free trade and engage other countries in free trade, we spread that belief and principle. Historically, that has proven to generate wealth and prosperity, not just for this country but for other nations, too.

I know the hon. member and I both serve on the foreign affairs committee, and this is a means to promote world peace, for instance. Therefore, it is a principle that we in this country believe in and that we in the government strongly believe in as well.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member opposite to talk about the fact that after all of the free trade agreements in the past 25 years were signed, some of our most successful industrial sectors collapsed. That was the case with the textile, leather and wood industries, among others. After agreements are signed, our industries completely collapse and there is no longer any support, from either the Liberals in the past or the Conservatives in recent years.

So how can they boast that this free trade agreement will stimulate our industries, particularly agriculture, where we are trying to be more successful? We know very well how they grow things in the south. I have no desire to eat that here.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had an hour to speak to that particular topic.

However, I did have members of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters in my office last week and one of the industries was a forestry industry. In our discussions, members of that industry mentioned how the forestry industry has turned the corner with respect to the trade that has been opened up to the east, as well as the United States, which was its primary trading partner at that particular time. They spoke about the fact that, with the new opportunities that have opened up, the forestry industry is so much stronger.

The days of cropping up industries and artificially making them successful just has not proven to be successful. That does not work. We know that if we give these manufacturers and the people in the field the opportunity to do what they do best, they will succeed. What they need are the markets. We are told repeatedly that they must have markets, and that is what this government is doing.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

The fact that we are debating this bill this week is timely, if members follow the excellent and tireless work my friend and colleague from Brossard—La Prairie is doing on tax havens. He has been called a radical for the work he has done, as have the groups he chooses to associate with.

Bill C-24 would implement a free trade agreement with Panama, a country known for this problem. It is not known as such by groups that members on the other side would call radical, but by the OECD, which has a well-deserved reputation and is very respected—by my colleagues opposite as well, I hope.

In trying to combat these tax havens, we are trying to create an environment where all citizens—particularly those in the middle class, whom we have the honour to represent, and those who may be tempted to avoid paying their fair share by using a tax haven—are treated equally in how they pay their taxes.

Tax havens are one of the reasons we are opposed to this bill.

In committee, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who is our critic on this issue, asked that we not ratify this agreement until Panama and our government have signed a tax information exchange agreement, which would enable us to tighten our surveillance on the abuses of tax havens.

The minister, in his comments this morning, said that work had begun and that such an agreement is being negotiated. Nevertheless, the agreement he referred to has not yet been signed. I think it is entirely reasonable to ask them to wait until it has been signed, in order to thoroughly evaluate the measures that would be instituted.

I am also basing my opinion on the actions of the U.S. Congress, which decided not to ratify the free trade agreement with Panama until a tax information exchange agreement—that fights tax havens—was signed.

I would like us to follow the example of our American counterparts on this; we must be very careful.

My colleague’s request was not accepted by other members of the committee, neither Liberals nor Conservatives, but I believe we must support such proposals. That is one of the problems with this bill.

In his comments earlier, a Liberal member said that we appeared to be denigrating Panama. That is not the case, not at all.

The Conservative member who spoke before me said that a free trade agreement could promote peace. But a free trade agreement is not only about the exchange of goods, but about the exchange of best practices. It is a cultural exchange, and an exchange in many fields. We must be aware of the standards we propose when we sign a free trade agreement. We also must be aware of the values we project.

Some developing countries such as China are having great economic success and are even becoming economic powerhouses. Thus, it is increasingly important that more than goods are exchanged, including what I call best practices. We live in a democratic country where, in general, the will of the public is respected. This ought to be reciprocal.

In this case, we really are talking about a tax haven. The core of my argument is that some housekeeping needs to be done before we can support this bill.

We do not support this agreement in its present state, but perhaps we will later. In committee, some extremely reasonable amendments were proposed. I already mentioned one of them, and now I will talk about some others.

There were amendments proposed concerning the minister’s obligation to consult stakeholders in Panama, both workers and employers. Whoever we are discussing, we believe that, even after signing an agreement, that should not be the end. We must continue to watch what is happening in the countries with whom we have free trade agreements. On the contrary, once the agreement has been signed, it is our duty to follow up and ensure that current practices are respected—concerning workers’ rights, sustainable development or tax havens. It is a matter of respect and completely in line with the principles of free trade, I firmly believe.

Sustainable development should also be the subject of amendments. They would deal with environmental standards. In political science, we talk about the “tragedy of the commons”, which is the same challenge we are facing in terms of climate change. Everyone must do their fair share. Signing a free trade agreement is a perfect opportunity to establish measures to fight climate change and protect our shared environment, not only in Quebec and Canada, but all over the world.

That opportunity is being missed here because this agreement does not address sustainable development seriously. That is another extremely essential point.

It would be useful to remind the members opposite of one point that has not yet been mentioned very much, and that is the work of the committee. All the members of our NDP caucus are aware of the criticism. We are ready to support agreements that are drafted conscientiously, are fair to both parties and encourage best practices. Once again, the proposals made by my colleagues on the Standing Committee on International Trade have been very reasonable.

That is a relevant comment, given the remarks by the Minister of International Trade this morning. There has been a lot of talk about exports and about keeping our Canadian industries competitive. Yesterday in committee, we heard a witness representing a business that has been affected by this problem. The video game industry, for example, is having problems because the dollar’s value is high, and it is certainly not the only one. This problem will not disappear because of a free trade agreement.

When I was studying political science, I looked closely at monetary and economic policy. Anyone who believes that a free trade agreement will automatically solve all economic problems and create jobs does not have a good understanding of the importance of the economic responsibility and the management role of a country such as ours, with such a vast economy.

Still, it is important to consider all the factors. The government has a lot of housekeeping to do and many problems to solve before it can say it has created a favourable environment for our exporters and investors.

I will end on a lighter note, but one that is serious nonetheless. If we want to create an investment climate that favours industry around the world, we cannot do it by making decisions at the very last minute. That is what we say now, and what we will say when we form the government in 2015.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague opposite, in that he gave this great presentation without notes. The House would be better served were that the case with all, so I give him that compliment.

Beyond the words comes the content, and my question for this hon. member is on the content. I sit on the international trade committee, and I sat through all the discussions on Panama. The New Democratic Party consistently opposed very reasonable positions, even with respect to labour rights when the International Labour Organization supported it, and with respect to the environment. Those are strong environmental standards and a rules-based system that would allow businesses to act and know the consequences of those actions.

One of the things that our colleague opposite talked about was a big concern he had with respect to money laundering and the like. Because this speaks to the issue of financial integrity in Panama and the growth it has seen in terms of better handling of its financial dealings, is the member opposite aware that Panama is no longer on the grey list? I will stop there and ask for a response.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for his compliment. It is greatly appreciated. It is also a good reminder that, even though the atmosphere in the House can sometimes get tense, we all have a common goal, and that is to serve our constituents.

To go back to concerns about the bill, although Panama is no longer on the grey list, some concerns remain. This was made obvious when the U.S. Congress chose to delay the signing of its free trade agreement. I am well aware that the minister has worked hard to negotiate an agreement with Panama and introduce measures to facilitate the release of financial information.

Nevertheless, some reasonable suggestions were made in committee. We suggested that Canada delay signing the agreement until we see how the governments of Canada and Panama deal with the issue of tax havens. Once we have more information, we can make a better decision, so we asked that the bill be delayed until that time. Unfortunately, the government disagreed, and that is why we oppose this bill.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, a Conservative member admitted during his speech that the workers' rights situation in Panama is not ideal. He also said that as Panama works with Canada, it will start making improvements in that area. I think he is dreaming in Technicolor.

Does the hon. member see that accepting the NDP amendments in committee would have been a great opportunity to strengthen this agreement?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. That is one of the troubling aspects that I raised. I would like to stay on the topic of reasonable amendments. We proposed another reasonable amendment. As my hon. colleague put it so well, the other side of the House acknowledged that the situation was not ideal. Hoping for it to improve is not enough. Problems need to be resolved before we sign free trade agreements. That is what we are advocating for.

I would like to come back to a point I raised during my speech. We are in favour of free trade agreements, but everything needs to be in order before they are ratified. That is precisely what we are advocating for here. Many of the proposed measures require some political will. It is not clear that that political will exists on the part of either the Canadian or the Panamanian government. We want these measures to be in place before the agreement is ratified.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member, and I think he said one of the reasons the NDP did not support it was because the Americans have not passed their free trade agreement. I have just clarified that the Americans have passed it. The member would put Canada and all of our provinces at a disadvantage. For example, Quebec would benefit from the elimination of Panamanian tariffs on key exports, such as pork, industrial construction machinery, pharmaceuticals and aerospace products, and he would put us behind.

Will the New Democrats support the agreement now that the Americans have given it their support?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I am glad to hear that the Americans have concluded their agreement. What is important here is why the Americans hesitated to do so. They wanted to wait until their country had signed a disclosure of information agreement with Panama. The minister admitted this morning that such an agreement between Canada and Panama has not been signed. The NDP is simply asking that we delay ratifying the free trade agreement until both governments sign a financial information disclosure agreement to combat tax havens.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that we live in the best country in the world, according to the talking points issued by the Prime Minister's Office that the Conservatives are so proud to read, but I am still rising to speak to Bill C-24 today with some concern.

It is all well and good to criticize the official opposition and claim that it is systematically against free trade, but members must understand that we are only against free trade in the Conservative sense, meaning some willy-nilly free trade without any kind of strategy or reflection. It is easy to say that we are against free trade. Personally, I am in favour of free trade with Japan. Japan is a good example of a modern country with very high standards and whose economy complements ours.

I get the impression that the Conservatives are dragging their feet in that case. But it does not hesitate to forge ahead with signing an agreement with Panama. I have nothing against Panama. On the contrary, I admire it a lot for emerging from a civil war and decades of corruption. It has improved a lot, but its justice and tax systems are still works in progress. These systems are not fully functional yet.

What concerns me is that, when this bill was studied in committee, we asked the government to adopt the same cautious approach that the Americans took and to require the signature of a tax information exchange agreement before ratifying the treaty. That is why the Americans ratified their treaty before Canada. From the outset, they required Panama to sign a tax agreement before Congress would ratify the agreement. This was basic good sense and represents the type of suggestions that we make in committee. The government did not adopt or support a single one of our proposals except those that were completely superficial or pertained to a procedural matter that involved buying time.

It is important to understand that Canada's international reputation and status as a leading nation are being compromised. My colleagues gave a list of all the countries that will soon be ahead of us economically. The reason is that these countries have long-term industrial, transportation and economic strategies. What is more, the trade they do with other countries is included in those strategies. I get the impression that the government would rather make agreements with countries such as China.

I apologize for getting off topic a little, but I would like to give an example. China has developed an absolutely enormous capacity to produce renewable energy and is producing wind and solar power. However, it does not possess a distribution network. The country has thus taken to dumping its renewable energy products onto international markets. The Chinese have already killed the three biggest solar power manufacturers in the United States and they are close to destroying their wind energy competitors in the United States and Europe. The agreement that the government is preparing to sign with China would open the door to these products. This would nip in the bud any potential to develop a similar industry in Canada.

When we make criticisms and propose amendments, these are the types of situations that we are thinking of. The Conservatives must take out their ideological earplugs and listen to us a little. We are not here to destroy or paralyze—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. The hon. member will have five minutes remaining when the House resumes debate on this motion.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Radiocommunication Act

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

moved that Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act and the Telecommunications Act (antenna systems), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a tremendous honour for me to address the House, especially today, as we begin debate on the first bill that I had the great honour to introduce, Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act and the Telecommunications Act (antenna systems).

The telecommunications industry is booming in Canada and has made it possible for our industries to improve their productivity and for our people to enhance their communications, both on a personal and professional level. However, the growth of this industry and the proliferation of towers everywhere in Canada has led many Canadians in various municipalities to complain about the rather unregulated installation of telecommunication and radiocommunication antennas.

People and municipalities have complained that some proponents were not listening to their concerns and had not consulted them about the location of the antennas. For that reason, it is important to adopt an approach that strikes a balance between the development of this industry and the concerns of Canadians.

The idea for this bill came to me in the fall of 2011, when I learned about something that had happened in my riding. People from Châteauguay and Mercier were faced with a fait accompli: five telecommunications towers were erected, but the townspeople were not consulted. The municipality was not consulted about the decision to erect these towers, which were just under 15 metres tall, in residential areas. The people and the mayor were not very pleased that they had not been consulted at all.

Had the company bothered to consult the municipality, it probably would have been told to put the towers a little further away, 100 to 200 metres from the residential area chosen, in an industrial park where the towers would not have bothered anyone. That would have allowed the company to cover the entire market that it wanted to penetrate. No one was consulted and this raised the ire of the inhabitants and mayors of the towns involved.

There were already several communication towers in the riding and they could have tried to share them. They would only have had to put up two, three or four towers, instead of the five that were erected. That is where I started to research and try to understand the scope of the problem, and I quickly learned that this is happening all over Canada. In the past three or four years, there has been a proliferation of antennas and problems in many cities where the public was not consulted.

There is no doubt that this is a national problem and not an isolated problem in a few ridings. For example, in Peterborough, Industry Canada improved an antenna site that was disputed by the public. At the time, more than 400 citizens signed a petition calling for another site to be chosen. The company involved and Industry Canada completely ignored the petition and proceeded to go ahead with the chosen site and to put up the tower in question.

In Mississauga, an antenna just shy of 15 metres was put up near a church. It was disguised as a cross to hide the fact that it is an antenna. But people quickly noticed that it was not a cross and that it was a telecommunication antenna. Once again, the deed was done, and although the public disputed that fact, they were not successful since it had already been done. These are the tactics being used by telecommunications companies, which do not consult the public or the municipalities.

I have one final example. In Oakville, eight antennas were installed recently on top of a building. The citizens of the surrounding area wondered if anyone had been consulted. They then learned that no one had been consulted or even informed of the situation. Even worse, they tried to get an explanation from the company in question, but it had the nerve to say that it had conducted consultations, when that was definitely not the case.

I could go on and on giving more examples from across Canada, where people disputed many telecommunications companies' choices and practices.

To really understand the problem, it is important to know that there is no legal framework for the development of the telecommunications system. Everything is covered by CPC-2-0-03, a guideline issued by Industry Canada. The requirements of this guideline apply to all proponents who plan to install or modify an antenna system, regardless of the type of installation or service. The four-step process seems pretty straightforward. First, you examine the possibility of tower sharing. Second, you contact whoever is responsible for the land, which is usually the municipality. Third, you notify the public and respond to public concerns. And fourth, you comply with Industry Canada requirements.

Since these are only guidelines, they are often circumvented or not applied. Unfortunately, we have no real way of forcing companies to adhere to Industry Canada's requirements. This bill addresses that and provides for a measure in that regard. Accordingly, it would be much more difficult for companies to get around what, for now, are only guidelines.

The process described in that guideline seems clear to me. Yet proponents do not always respect it. And Industry Canada does not appear to apply any of the sanctions set out in the guideline, which means that there are no penalties for companies that use dubious practices, to say the least. For instance, companies do very little consultation or else they call at unusual times, like in the afternoon. No one is home at 2 p.m. Then the company can say that it consulted people, but they were not home. That is one dubious practice.

It is time to put an end to the disrespect being shown towards the municipalities and Canadians by enhancing co-operation between municipalities, citizens and telecommunications proponents.

That is why I introduced Bill C-429. I hope that the members of all parties will support this bill in order to send a clear message to proponents: better co-operation is needed among the companies, Canadians and the municipalities when new telecommunications towers are being erected.

I would now like to talk about the various provisions of my bill so that everyone can understand it and see how it will solve the problems that I mentioned.

First, in order to avoid a proliferation of antenna sites, my bill would require licensees to discuss in good faith among themselves in order to come to an agreement that would allow for the sharing of existing antenna structures. In order to ensure that negotiations among proponents are conducted in good faith, proponents would have to produce a document showing that they tried to reach an agreement or that an agreement was signed. This document must explain the sharing agreement, if applicable, or indicate why such an agreement could not be reached. There are some cases where such agreements are impossible for technical reasons.

This provision is nothing new since it is already set out in directive CPC-2-0-03. Proponents have to produce a document explaining the content of the agreement or the reason why an agreement could not be reached.

The bill would also require proponents to consult the land-use authority, namely the municipality, in order to determine the local requirements. By consulting land-use authorities, proponents will be able to obtain information about the public consultation process already established by the authority, if applicable, and to discuss potential antenna sites.

The proponent often has an idea about where it wants to erect its antenna towers, but the municipality, which has a development plan, could suggest a location that is acceptable to both parties. The company could also respond to the reasonable and pertinent concerns of the land-use authority and of the community it represents. One of these concerns could be proximity of the antennas to residential areas.

After consulting the municipality, the proponent must produce a document attesting to the fact that its discussions with the responsible authority were carried out in good faith.

The bill requires public consultations for the construction of any new antenna-bearing structures or towers under or over 15 metres in height . As I mentioned, the current exception causes many problems. Proponents install towers that are 14.9 metres in height, or just under 15 metres, to avoid having to consult municipalities and their inhabitants. Under this bill, any construction of towers or antenna structures, no matter the height, will require consultation. Industry Canada will have to subsequently publish a document prepared by the proponent indicating that the consultation process was respected.

Because some antenna systems may not be detrimental to the municipality and the people, Industry Canada or the municipality may grant an exemption so that consultations are not undertaken needlessly. The bill contains a clause to that effect, which also applies to rural and remote areas. Many of these areas do not have telecommunications services. If a tower is erected in a field and does not affect anyone, consultations are not required.

There is fierce competition in the telecommunications industry, and proponents must protect their market share. Therefore, proponents do not want to share their structures with competitors. That is understandable. However it is not prejudicial to the proponents to share an antenna site where competition for the services provided is expected. If proponents do not share sites, there will be a proliferation of antenna sites, which is very bad for the land-use authority and the people.

If proponents refuse to share the site for dubious reasons, the CRTC could rule on the matter. That is why my bill expands the CRTC's authority to allow it to settle disputes between proponents regarding the sharing of telecommunications towers. This provision will have the advantage of creating a single forum independent of government to resolve any disputes that arise between telecommunications companies regarding the sharing of radiocommunication sites. If any problems arise subsequently, the CRTC's decisions could be referred to in order to resolve conflicts.

Under the current guideline, these disputes can be solved by Industry Canada or by an arbitrator, in accordance with the arbitration procedure set out in Industry Canada's Arbitration Rules and Procedures. However, according to Industry Canada, that procedure is very rarely used because several stakeholders have told the department that the established procedure is not very well suited to the needs of the industry.

There is an advantage to giving the CRTC the authority to rule on disputes regarding tower sharing. The commission's rulings could act as a kind of jurisprudence, which could be used in the future to clarify the requirements for the sharing of telecommunications towers.

Lastly, we want to encourage compliance with laws and regulations and respect for Canadian communities by introducing clear penalties for non-compliance.

In closing, I would like to point out to the hon. members that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Union des municipalités du Québec, and the Fédération québécoise des municipalités all support my bill. We are in talks with the other federations of municipalities in other provinces. I hope to obtain their support in the very near future.

Therefore I ask all members of the House to support this bill. I think it strikes a good balance between the concerns of the public and the needs of the industry.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his leadership with the bill and for his excellent speech. I would also like to add that, since being elected, I have heard from constituents about their desire to have their voices heard in the process of the development of telecommunication towers in their communities.

I am curious to know if my colleague heard that from his own constituents as well as from across Canada when he did his own consultation for the bill.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for her excellent question.

Soon after I was elected, many of my constituents told me that they were concerned about the fact that they have towers only 15 metres from their backyards. One constituent said that, when she put her house on the market, every time potential buyers came to see it, they would go into the backyard and see the tower next door, only 15 metres away. Buyers would then no longer want to see the inside of the house, if they had not done so already. They no longer wanted to buy the house because the tower was already built.

The mayor of Châteauguay also told me that she was very upset about the situation because, had the company been directed to erect the tower in the nearby industrial park, then it would not have bothered anyone and everyone would have been happy. What is more, as I mentioned, the company could have shared existing structures, but right now, there is hardly any sharing of telecommunications towers. There are thus several problems that need to be solved.

The industry must change its way of doing things. This bill will limit companies a little more so that they have more respect for people and municipalities when they set up somewhere.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for this bill.

The people in my riding, which is located in a rural area, also share this concern. There are many mountains and the scenery is extraordinary.

For the past several years, we have seen an increasing number of towers being set up. Everywhere we look we see one, two, three or even four towers. The situation is out of hand. We want to harmonize things.

We are calling on the Conservative government to harmonize the laws and consult with the public. However, it seems that this is sometimes difficult. People's quality of life is at stake. In rural areas, we have an exceptional quality of life. People all across Canada are proud of the landscape and mountains that make up our countryside. These days, we look and see one, two, three or even four towers. It has gotten out of hand, and some proponents are even trying to bend the rules.

My question is for the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant. Why is this bill so important?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for his comments.

There has been a proliferation of towers. As he mentioned, there are often several towers in any given area. More often than not, the towers could be shared. However, in some cases, the telecommunication towers cannot be shared for technical reasons.

At present, proponents of telecommunication systems are only bound by guidelines instructing them to proceed in a certain way. These guidelines are not governed by legislation. The rules, which are not very effective, can be sidestepped and do not provide an adequate framework for the industry. It would not be difficult to resolve this issue.

The bill requires that people be consulted. Furthermore, a company could be asked to not install a tower where they would create visual pollution and to move the location a few hundred metres further away, if possible, to an area where it would bother fewer people. Thus, there could be more consultation.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for introducing such an important bill.

Bill C-429 aims to improve a situation in a sector that is rapidly expanding across Canada. This sector provides services to all Canadians. All Canadians rely on these services in emergencies, in their daily lives and in meeting their family's needs.

We want to discuss this issue to improve the regulations and legislation in this area. However, for the reasons I will describe, we do not think that this bill achieves the objectives set by the government and by Canadians.

We know this technology has given us a richer experience. It has added value, productivity and pleasure to the lives of Canadians across the board. However, with ever more bandwidth-intensive multimedia applications being developed for mobile uses, with high-speed data being required and with additional radio frequency spectrum becoming available, the pressure for existing towers and existing antennas to support more service than ever and for new towers to be built is obviously without precedent. The restructuring of our economy to reinforce the presence of e-commerce and to allow consumers to conduct ordinary financial transactions on their mobile phones means that we can expect these volumes of data to continue to grow.

Let us not forget the most urgent situations, the most tragic circumstances in which people are now depending on their mobile phones, either as eyewitnesses or as victims of accidents or crimes. Something like one-half of all 911 calls today in Canada are initiated by someone using a mobile phone. Police, firefighters, ambulance operators, air navigators, national defence, all of our first responders know this. They also know that when an accident happens where there are no mobile services, where we do not have a tower or antenna nearby, it is much more difficult for eyewitnesses or those involved to get the action they need.

Unfortunately, in supporting the goal of building new antennas and building a better system across Canada, Bill C-429 does not do the job. It would duplicate existing regulatory requirements. It would impose an additional regulatory and administrative burden on everyone without any discernable benefit. It would add red tape and this is obviously a challenge that our government has spent a lot of time trying to focus on. When government gets in the way of private enterprise, when government makes a sector less efficient or less productive, it affects everyone. It raises the costs of telecommunications and we do not want to allow that to happen any more than it already has.

It would also require that Industry Canada be involved in all cases, even for TV antennas or satellite dishes attached to someone's home, which is not currently the case. We want the industry to manage its own affairs and manage the question of locating antennas and towers as autonomously as possible, obviously with the participation in most cases of municipalities. The bill would add paperwork, literally, and require whole offices to be created in Industry Canada at a time when we do not think that is necessary.

To be clear, there is another issue that Bill C-429 does not address and that is health and safety considerations. Much of the debate that we hear today about mobile devices and mobile communications has to do with the potential impact of all these radio waves on our bodies, particularly on those living near the antennas. That is definitely being studied. It needs attention. It is an object of concern.

However, this bill does not address those issues. They are regulated under the Radiation Emitting Devices Act or Safety Code 6, which are effectively enforced today on all antennas and towers regardless of height or location. This bill does not seek to amend those provisions.

The government's current requirements for the regulation of antenna supporting structures were developed based on the results of extensive national consultation. Public, industry and municipalities were involved across the country and, as I will mention a little later, we are continuing these consultations on issues where we think there is even more room for improvement.

The result of these consultations was a kind of balance: a balance between the needs of Canadian consumers—of course the well-being of Canadians and their ability to use cell phones safely—and the needs of police officers, firefighters and other people who respond to emergencies, solve crises and who rely on these radio-communication and telecommunication services.

This balance is important, and as with so many issues this House has considered, whether it is the Copyright Act or the military justice bill that is still before the House, there are many stakeholders and many interests. We have to strike the right balance to make sure the interests of consumers, industry and safety are kept intact, and indeed advanced.

We think our regulation is now doing that. We think this bill would break that balance. It is not surprising to see a bill like this imposing an additional administrative and regulatory burden, additional costs on Industry Canada, and additional red tape. We have heard that in the opposition members' comments on our budget bills and on many of the bureaucracy-cutting measures that the government has tried to bring in.

The $21 billion carbon tax is probably the most obvious example of this heavy-handed interventionist approach that the NDP has committed to, at least according to their last electoral platform, but there are many other examples.

As for tower sharing, it is obvious.

Our government is in favour of tower sharing. That is why, since 2008, under our government, we have required all companies wanting to erect a new structure to explore the possibility of sharing with other users. They do not have the right to erect new structures if there is no good reason to do so.

These reasons can be related to the maximum capacity of a tower or issues related to technical incompatibility of the proposed shared users. The government has the ability to resolve disputes between operators, and even to say that a reason given for not sharing is inadmissible.

We want to improve that.

That is why, since June 2012, there has been a new consultation process.

We are seeking stakeholder views on proposed changes to the requirements to share towers that would expedite the tower sharing process and further strengthen the effectiveness of that policy.

The vast majority of proponents of new towers follow the requirements to the letter. They examine tower sharing options. In circumstances where it is not possible and it proves necessary to erect a new structure, they have to consult with local stakeholders, including land use authorities and the public. Most importantly, because proponents follow these requirements, the vast majority of the antennas erected each year are developed without the need for direct government intervention.

This is the kind of dynamic that we want to see reinforced. Obviously the Department of Industry investigates to ensure the enforcement of standards for antennas of every height and every type. This has resulted in non-compliant towers being taken down in residential or suburban areas.

In contrast to the above, the bill as proposed would require government's direct and active intervention in over 1,000 antennas erected each year, even for those that are intended for personal use, even if tower sharing arrangements had been considered and even if there are no stakeholder concerns.

It would impose extensive record-keeping and verification procedures. It could create confusion between companies and the municipalities without creating an ability to resolve those disputes.

For this reason we cannot support the bill. We want a Canadian industry that is effective, modern, innovative and low cost. We want one that serves Canadians. We know that there are challenges, especially on the cost front in this country compared to other jurisdictions. The bill will not achieve the goals that Canadians want us to achieve. We think the consultation process in existing legislation is the way to go.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize, I thought it was time for questions and comments. I was mistaken.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this House today to debate the bill introduced by my hon. colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

I will talk not only about the content of the bill, but also about its purpose. I will also discuss what we need to do to make sure we examine this issue with all due care.

I also want to speak about the problems with cell towers, which constituents of mine have raised with me over the years, and more frequently in recent times. I know it is beyond the comments of the hon. parliamentary secretary, but one of the big concerns people have is that they cannot get information. It seems that Industry Canada actually has a fair bit of information, but it is put in complicated ways and in disparate locations so that we really have to dig hard to figure out what is going on in each location. If we have a particular location in mind and want to find out what power there is from that tower, what the radio frequencies are, et cetera, we cannot find out.

I am not saying there are negative health effects associated with the present levels we hear about. However, I do have constituents who are concerned about this and who worry about those effects. Some of them have said that they accept the fact that the science today does not show there is a problem with this, but they have seen so many things where 25 years ago they thought something was fine and not causing a problem at all and today they find out that it is causing a problem. There are so many examples of that, people do not have complete confidence in what technologies such as this can do and what effects they may have.

I think it is very reasonable to say that we should have a very simple way to find out, in relation to a tower at a particular address, the key information about what is happening there. It is very difficult as it stands now to find that on the Industry Canada website and it ought to be made much easier.

I also want to start by letting my colleagues know that based upon our initial assessment of Bill C-429, we believe the House should pass the bill at second reading and send the legislation to committee for an in-depth study. That way we could benefit from expert testimony on this subject and look for ways to strengthen and improve the bill.

It is clear from a quick scan of media that cell towers are becoming a point of concern in just about every province in the country. In fact, as the bill's sponsor points out, local residents' associations, landowners, municipal councillors and others are seeing cell towers popping up all over the place and they feel they are left out of the process. There is no consultation with them. There is no consideration of the impact on their neighbourhoods, no negotiations at all. Sometimes these things are not the most attractive items in the neighbourhood and people do not find them all that desirable. Obviously it has led to hostile feelings and a sense of powerlessness among people in the neighbourhood.

My colleague said that he introduced a bill that would create legislation to support the existing Industry Canada directive on public consultations. He circulated a letter yesterday in which he said:

The bill will ensure that telecommunications antennas are installed in a logical manner that respects the interests of communities while increasing access to modern telecommunications services.

I am sure it will not be that easy to have the issue settled in a logical manner. I expect that cell phone companies will bring forward arguments to support what they are doing and explain that if we want to have state-of-the-art wireless services, we also have to accept the necessary infrastructure.

I think people understand that, but I think we also have to recognize that finding middle ground, although it is difficult to find, is worth pursuing. It does not mean we should give up and not try. From personal discussions, I know this is an issue that could be a growing cause of friction in countless communities.

Let us look at what the bill actually does. Bill C-429 would amend the Radiocommunication Act in order to provide for the possibility of sharing antenna system infrastructures, and to require the proponent to consult the land use authority and hold a public consultation. It would also amend the Telecommunications Act to allow the telecommunications carrier to apply to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to gain access to masts, towers and other antenna-supporting structures belonging to the holder of an authorization under the Radiocommunication Act. I think those are worthwhile objectives.

It is obvious that something has to be done, but we also have to make sure that we get it right. Too many consumers are depending on this.

The hon. parliamentary secretary highlighted the issue of red tape and not wanting to have too much regulatory burden placed on industry. I understand that. At the same time, it is important to recognize and try to address the real concerns of people in the neighbourhoods where these are located.

I know that the member for Peterborough has heard about the issue. Teresa Daw represents 160 homeowners and has been a forceful opponent of a proposed telecom tower application on Lansdowne Street in Peterborough. In a recent letter to the Minister of Industry, she wrote:

We find it incomprehensible that Industry Canada has neither appropriately responded to our correspondence nor committed to considering our reasonable and well-grounded concerns in their analysis of this application. We find it equally incomprehensible that the proponent does not appear to be held responsible to address our concerns, particularly those that are governed by CPC-2-0-03 and/or pertain to the accuracy of the description of a local environment.

In Edmonton, people are upset with a cellphone antenna being built in a church steeple. They are angry over how the tower was approved. The hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc has pointed out that is in his riding.

Others have put forward very solid arguments calling for a cell tower protocol that gives residents a say in where these towers are erected and a meaningful role in the process.

The stories of these concerned residents in Edmonton and Peterborough are repeated in communities across Canada. I know, because I have heard them from my own constituents in Halifax West, who have been angry about the lack of public input in cell tower locations in their own neighbourhoods.

Some in fact have had positive results. Just over a year ago, a large number of residents gathered at the Wallace Lucas Community Centre in Lucasville, Nova Scotia to oppose an EastLink cell tower on Daisywood Drive in Hammonds Plains. Due to community concerns, EastLink responded by moving the location 100 meters and it was approved by community council. This moved it further from some of the houses, but not all, so not everyone was satisfied with that. Clearly, not everyone felt that was a big improvement, but at least it was some improvement as a result of that community involvement. Although the meeting was held by the municipal land use authority, the residents felt the decision was already made and that they had no say in whether the tower was actually to be built or not. They felt they were stuck having it in their area. It was more a question of where exactly it was going to go.

There was another case, this one in Bedford. A constituent found out just one week before a cellphone company planned to upgrade a cell tower that was already in use by the water commission. Because it was only an upgrade and not new construction, no public consultation was held at all. This particular constituent felt that the public was given very little notice and no detailed information about the cell tower, the radio frequency output and so forth. That is not acceptable.

It seems to me to be very clear. This is not difficult. It is just simple information that ought to be made available to the public in an easily accessible way. The Internet is a marvellous tool for that sort of thing. I personally found it extremely frustrating when I attempted, for several years, to get data on a cellphone tower inside a church tower on Donaldson Avenue in Halifax, in my riding. After something like five or six years, I finally got the information. However, it was a very frustrating process and very frustrating for the constituent who lives across the street from that church, from whom I hear about this whenever I knock on his door. Therefore, I was glad to finally get the information.

I very much appreciate the efforts of the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, who introduced this bill in the House.

As I have already said, we must support this bill at second reading and send it to committee so that it can be studied, so that we can hear from experts and make an informed decision on the best way to manage this growing problem.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in favour of Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act and the Telecommunications Act (antenna systems).

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, for introducing the important and necessary changes to this act, for which my constituents are also grateful.

Citizens and municipalities across Canada, including Scarborough—Rouge River, have expressed their concerns with the uncontrolled development of radiocommunication and telecommunication towers. Constituents like mine are frustrated that the players involved, the proponents, are not taking their concerns into consideration.

I myself have had meetings and received numerous correspondence from residents from the Rosewood community in Scarborough—Rouge River, who are opposed to the tower that is being built in their neighbourhood and our community. Among the reasons they are opposed is that a tower already exists in that neighbourhood. They also expressed health concerns with a tower so close to a residential area, as well as concerns for the community's aesthetics. A City of Toronto planner also suggested finding an alternate location. Residents from this community have sent emails, letters and petitions to government representatives, as well as the proponent of the tower, to express their objections to the creation of it.

I also wrote a letter to the CRTC, and the company wishing to put up the tower, to express our shared concerns. In that letter, I requested that the service provider give strong consideration to the concerns of the community and the municipality and work together to find a feasible solution to the problem. That is why I am pleased to stand up in the House to support this bill that was introduced by my hon. colleague.

It is vital to have a balanced approach to the industry's growth and the concerns of Canadians. There are many changes included in the bill that would benefit my constituents of Scarborough—Rouge River and impact Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The bill is what the residents of Rosewood in Scarborough—Rouge River are asking for, that being an avenue to have their voices heard. The bill would seek to not only regulate the development and construction of antenna systems but also to democratize the process, by involving the municipalities and citizens of these municipalities in the decision-making process through a more clear and thorough public consultation process.

I want to be clear. This is not about blocking the industry's growth. Wireless telecommunications is an industry that generates enormous economic benefits for the Canadian economy of around $43 billion. It also employs more than 261,000 Canadians. I, for one, rely heavily on my wireless device and presume that the 26 million other wireless subscribers do as well.

The bill is about ensuring that the development of the telecommunications industry is orderly, efficient and respects citizens and local planning.

I support Bill C-429 because it would legislate the process for constructing and installing antenna systems and helps to ensure a balanced development of the telecommunications antennas.

In addition, and in my opinion, the most important piece is that the bill would democratize the decision-making process by involving the land use authorities, citizens and residents of the areas.

According to directive CPC-2-0-03, towers under 15 metres are currently exempt from the consultation process. Therefore, if one is building a tower that is 14.9 metres tall, there are no obligations to have any public consultative processes. That does not seem right. Regardless of height, I believe concerned citizens and the land use authorities deserve an avenue to be heard. This bill would remedy this flaw by requiring public consultation for all towers and antennas. With this bill, telecommunication companies or persons interested in putting up a tower, the proponents, would no longer be able to install antennas without taking into consideration the concerns of municipalities and citizens as part of the project development process.

This would involve consultation to determine local requirements, including a public consultation process that must be held for the construction of any tower, antennas or antenna-bearing structures regardless of their height, a discussion of possible locations and a response to the reasonable and relevant concerns of the land use authorities and the communities they represent.

Industry Canada would have to issue a document to the proponent confirming that the public consultation process has been respected. Following these consultations, the proponent would release a document showing that discussions were held in good faith and setting out the concerns of each party.

I have heard from many constituents since my election, about their concerns with telecommunications antennae in their neighbourhoods and they have clearly expressed their desire to be consulted and included in the decision-making process. My constituents are looking for a place where they can have their say.

In addition, the bill would encourage a more efficient and fair tower sharing between companies by requiring permit holders to negotiate in good faith and produce documentation explaining the positions they have reached. This provision would thereby reduce the proliferation of redundant towers. Moreover, should any conflict arise among the proponents and competitors about tower sharing, the bill would give the CRTC the power to settle disputes and establish a unique and independent forum for settling those disputes.

This certainly would be an improvement upon the current process where disputes are settled by Industry Canada or an arbitrator. The current process is one which stakeholders have advised is lengthy and cumbersome. Stakeholders have also indicated that it fails to encourage sharing of tower sites. Another benefit of giving the CRTC the authority to settle disputes regarding antenna sharing would be that its decision would establish precedents that would clarify the requirements for sharing radio communications installations and would provide direction on the rights and responsibilities of telecommunications.

Finally, there is also accountability added into the bill with a provision regarding penalties for non-compliance. Thank goodness the NDP and hon. members like my colleague are listening to our constituents and proposing real action on their needs and concerns. Moreover, as we have been hearing over and over again, the bill demonstrates how important consultation and democratic processes are for Canadians and the NDP. A public forum, a conversation about locations and alternatives and a response from the department all sound like reasonable, democratic actions for decision, something we know the Conservatives seem to have an aversion to as seen with their Trojan horse budget bill and with the most recent budget implementation act.

New Democrats want to protect our urban and rural environments from the uncontrolled development of antenna systems. The bill would not increase the regulatory burden, but simply and importantly would put into law an existing Industry Canada directive. We would ask simply that promoters respect municipal development plans and take into consideration the concerns of municipalities and citizens like those within the Rosewood community in my riding.

Also, encouraging and facilitating the sharing of antenna sites by telecommunications companies makes sense. The bill would do so by streamlining the site-sharing application and dispute resolution process and giving oversight to the CRTC.

Finally, laws without proper enforcement can simply be ineffective. Laying out clear penalties for non-compliance with acts and regulations can ensure its enforcement and the bill would do just that.

I thank my hon. colleague for taking the time to consult with his constituents and Canadians across the country and putting forth this bill. I know residents in Scarborough—Rouge River will be happy to support the bill moving forward.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to contribute to this debate on Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act and the Telecommunications Act (antenna systems).

Our government embraces the interests of Canadians in the growth and advancement of wireless technology. We know that to provide the reliable high-speed services that are our customers want and need, radio telecommunications antennas are essential and they are to be placed in locations near where the wireless devices are used, not only for personal and business use but also by law enforcement and first responders.

The need to expand wireless networks to accommodate the growth in demand must be balanced with the community's needs and interests: the availability of reasonable locations to place the antennas technical limitations and the rigorous safety requirements that apply to antennas of every height and description. Bill C-429 seeks to amend the Radiocommunication Act and the Telecommunications Act. Most of the amendments duplicate existing requirements, but the amendments are much less clear and would increase the regulatory burden for Canadians without creating any additional benefits.

First, the bill would require that proponents consider sharing or using existing towers before installing a new one. Proponents are already required to take this step under the current rules. Under the bill, proponents would be required to consult local land use authorities to determine their requirements with respect to antenna systems. Once again, this requirement already exists and the roles and responsibilities of those involved are clearly explained, which the bill fails to do.

Next, the bill would create offences for failing to respect these general obligations. The government already has mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with the requirements related to antenna towers. Finally, the bill would provide the authority to the CRTC to mandate a given holder of a radio authorization to share given towers upon application to the telecommunications carrier.

The bill would represent a step backward, not forward, in the regulation for antenna towers. It would introduce general obligations with little guidance as to the details, while at the same time duplicating the existing procedures that guide relationships between proponents and the local communities. This would serve only to increase uncertainty among all Canadians as to what is required of them and how they ought to go about meeting these obligations. Property owners, businesses and local communities alike would be diverted from working meaningfully toward common ground. At a time when Canadians are interested as ever in clear rules to address this important issue, Bill C-429 provides less clarity than the existing procedures.

The Client Procedures Circular on Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems provides specific guidance to proponents of new antenna infrastructure that must be followed in order to meet the government's objectives of striking a balance between enabling the development of needed wireless infrastructure and taking into consideration local concerns. Additionally, current procedures provide dispute resolution mechanisms that allow impasses between local communities, land use authorities, such as municipalities, and the proponents to be resolved.

In place of meaningful guidelines that ensure that local concerns are taken into account in an antenna-siting decisions, the obligations outlined in the bill emphasize paperwork over meaningful consultation. This sort of approach does not provide meaningful benefit to the public.

For instance, under the bill, even a property owner who wishes to install a low impact antenna system would have to engage in an extensive documentation procedure, including direct government involvement. These requirements, according to the bill, would apply to any person who plans the installation or modification of an antenna system, regardless of the type of installation or service offered. It would apply regardless of whether community stakeholders have voiced any concerns.

I would also direct particular attention to the redundant provisions proposed by the bill that would provide additional unnecessary power to the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission. This power would allow the CRTC to issue orders to holders of radio authorizations issued by the Minister of Industry to require that they share towers with telecommunications carriers.

This proposed power is so broad that it would allow the CRTC to issue orders to any holder of a radio authorization, including public safety agencies and other non-commercial carriers. It would also introduce overlapping authorities with the existing powers of the Minister of Industry, who is responsible for regulating the behaviour of those holding the radio authorizations.

There is little reason to introduce these additional regulations and authorities. Doing so would only add to the regulatory uncertainty and increase the administrative burden on government.

Let me be absolutely clear. The bill would do nothing for the health or safety of Canadians, given that it would not change the requirements that are imposed on every tower or antenna, regardless of height or location. It would harm consumers and those in need of emergency services by tying up the growth of essential services, wireless infrastructure and paperwork. It would intrude upon property owners who wished to install basic antenna systems. It would increase the costs to taxpayers by requiring direct government involvement in every antenna installation. At best is it would duplicate some of the existing requirements, while adding ineffectual red tape.

In the meantime, our government continues to take action, consulting those who are interested in this important issue of tower sharing to find solutions that could reduce the need for new towers, at the same time enforcing existing requirements with rigour. It is this kind of proactive approach that should be favoured by the House, rather than unnecessary red tape.

I urge all hon. members to oppose the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis will have two minutes.