Debates of Oct. 5th, 2016

Dairy Industry

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, that sounded nice, but it was a little short on detail.

In four minutes, the Liberals were unable to give me any details about the solution or tell me what timelines they are working with to implement that solution and keep Canada's dairy industry strong. While the Liberals hem and haw, farmers are losing money. That has to stop.

We still do not know anything about compensation. The parliamentary secretary did not even mention compensation for supply management. The issue is being avoided at all of Canada's ongoing international trade agreement negotiations, such as with the European Union and the TPP.

Here again are my two questions. With respect to diafiltered milk, what is the solution, and what is the timeline? What compensation is the government promising, and when will farmers receive it?

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to point out that in anticipation of Canadian ratification of CETA, we intend to come up with a plan to help the dairy industry, so that our producers can adjust to meet their new obligations under the agreement. Our government understands the importance of providing transition support to sectors under supply management, and we have taken into account the ideas we heard from across the industry.

Our government is confident that the dairy sector can remain competitive and tackle emerging trade issues. Producers are creative and hard-working and will help the industry find ways to do so. We will continue to work with the sector so that it can overcome current challenges and make the most of the opportunities that are out there.

I am firmly of the view that our collaborative efforts and our investments in innovation will place Canada's dairy industry in a position of strength so that it can reach its full potential as a major economic player.

Telecommunications Industry

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to continue debate with regard to the important issue of telecommunications in Canada. In particular, I raise concerns about concentration, competition, jobs, and consumers, as basically 90% of our telecommunications industry is dominated by three major players.

One concern I raised was Manitoba Telecom Services being bought up by BCE, which was a venture worth approximately $4 billion.

One thing we are worried about in this situation is how it could reduce competition and affect services and prices for consumers. We have seen in the past that competition has decreased prices. We are worried about this situation allowing an increase in prices.

Right now, nearly 70% of Canadians have smart phones. We have been moving to smart phones and wireless technology and away from land lines. This is a significant cultural shift for this country. The top activities on mobile devices are texting, done by 93% of users; taking photos and videos, done by 91% of users; browsing the Internet, done by 82% of users; calendar functionality, used by 77% of users; and applications, used by 77% of users.

What we need is competition and reliable service.

There are issues that significantly affect us and our families day to day.

I ask the minister a simple question: How is the takeover by BCE going to improve competition not only in Manitoba but in the rest of Canada, given that the smart phone or mobile device is so essential to our daily activities?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to comments made earlier by the hon. member for Windsor West, with whom I work closely on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

The government has a keen interest in the telecommunications sector. We consider it to be an essential platform for innovation and a leading factor in the growth of our digital economy. Many areas of government contribute to the policies and regulations for the wireless telecommunications sector.

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development is responsible for the Telecommunications Act, which sets the overall direction for telecommunications policy, and the Radiocommunication Act, which sets policies related to the allocation, transfer, and use of spectrum frequencies, the airwaves used by wireless providers.

When it comes to the wireless spectrum, the government will continue its efforts to make additional spectrum available to wireless providers to support competition, choice and availability of services, and a strong investment environment for telecommunications services.

Spectrum transactions that require regulatory approval, such as spectrum licence transfers, will be considered accordingly, and any licence transfer requests will be treated on a case-by-case basis. I can assure the House that any decisions relating to spectrum will be made in the context of the mandate objectives that I have just highlighted.

Additionally, the CRTC is responsible for regulating and supervising Canada’s communications system, both broadcasting and telecommunications, in the public interest. The CRTC has taken a number of actions to support wireless consumers, such as creating a national, mandatory code of conduct for wireless service providers and regulating wholesale roaming rates, meaning the rates that large incumbent carriers charge smaller providers when customers roam on their networks.

Finally, the Competition Bureau ensures that Canadian businesses and consumers prosper in a competitive and innovative marketplace. The bureau administers the provisions of the Competition Act, including reviewing mergers to determine whether they are likely to result in substantial lessening or prevention of competition, along with investigating allegations of price-fixing, false or misleading representations, abuse of dominance, and other anti-competitive activities.

The Competition Bureau is currently reviewing the proposed acquisition of Manitoba Telecom Services by BCE, in order to determine whether the transaction is likely to substantially lessen or prevent competition. As part of the Bureau’s usual approach in examining a merger, it consults with a wide range of industry participants to obtain their views regarding the competitive implications of a proposed transaction.

I would like to close by reiterating that the government will work to support competition, choice, and availability of telecommunications services for Canadians. We are also committed to fostering a strong investment climate for this essential sector of our economy.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the question that has to be raised for Canadians at this point in time is whether a smart phone or mobile device is really an essential service to them and their families. With that, how can they afford it in their daily lives? How can they count on the reliability of the product and the service?

Our phones today are mobile devices. There are moments where we get calls about emergencies. There are moments where we will call out during emergency situations. Many Canadians do banking online. Many Canadians use the device to communicate, learn, and do educational and other projects for school. There are many ways that the phone has been integrated into our overall life.

Canadians have to ask themselves whether or not we need stronger government policies to ensure that this really is an essential service, such that it is going to require a greater hand on the lever to make sure consumers are protected and well serviced at a fair and appropriate price, and that privacy is protected. With all these device elements caught up in one entire situation, it is about time that consumers came first in terms of price and also in terms of rights.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Windsor West raises very good questions as to whether or not smart phones should be considered essential services. I know we are also taking a look at the question of whether broadband should be considered an essential service. It is a big issue for many people in rural communities.

On the latter question, we know that the CRTC is examining that right now. We are waiting for its decision. I will not attempt to prejudge, as it is going through hearings on that.

To the former question though, this is something we have to discuss. To what level are we able to discuss it? There are important public policy questions that come into play as to whether or not, if we do consider it an essential service, we would still get the same kind of competitive pricing that the hon. member was talking about. If we look back to what happened when we considered basic telephone service an essential service, there were minimum fees that were attached and applied to all personal accounts across the country. That might mitigate against the honourable ends that my hon. colleague is trying to achieve.

Indigenous Affairs

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I follow up on a question I asked a while ago, I think members will understand why it is really important that we get clarity and see leadership from the government. This was a question I asked on May 16 to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I asked her if she could clarify, as part of the government's implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, if they would have a veto over job-creating projects.

We have a current duty to consult and accommodate, and the language of the UN declaration is “free, prior and informed consent”. That is significantly different language and it is very new to the Canadian landscape. An article in the The Globe and Mail read:

At stake is what power First Nations and other aboriginal communities will exercise in decisions over whether projects such as mines, pipelines, hydroelectric dams and transmission lines get approved and built.

We could add a number of things that would also be included, such as tourism, construction of roads, sewage systems, schools, airport expansions, hospitals, and much more.

We tried to ask the government to clarify on numerous occasions what the difference is. We did that in committee and in the chamber. Indeed, the media has also been asking that question.

Our committee asked the Minister of Indigenous Affairs on March 10. We did not get a clear answer. We asked the Minister of Natural Resources on April 21, and we did not get a clear answer. The committee did not get a clear answer from the Minister of Environment either on May 12. As recently as Sunday, the natural resources minister refused to answer Evan Soloman's yes-or-no question regarding the wording of a veto.

The Prime Minister actually took a clear stance when he was trying to win an election. It was during an APTN virtual town hall. He was asked if “no” would mean “no” under his government. He responded, “Absolutely”. By February, the APTN reported he was backing away from his pledge. In May, the Minister of Justice said the government would adopt UNDRIP without qualification, but recently she said this was “simplistic”, “unworkable”, and can't be done word for word.

The Prime Minister and his government have created confusion. They have left communities in the dark and industries in the dark. To be quite frank, this is not fair to anyone.

This week I spent some time at the Pipeline Gridlock Conference in Calgary. The Canadian aboriginal business leaders were looking to improve dialogue on pipelines and ways to support approval. There was really mass confusion, so I am hoping tonight that I am going to have a response that is going to very clearly articulate the difference between “consult and accommodate” and “free, prior and informed consent”, and if indeed this means veto, yes or no.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this evening to rise to respond to the question by the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, here on traditional Algonquin territory.

As stated in the mandate letter to each and every minister of this government, no relationship is more important to the Prime Minister or to Canada than the one with first nations, the Métis nation, and Inuit people. It is time for a renewed, nation-to-nation, government-to-government, and Inuit-to-crown relationship with indigenous people based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

The member points to a very significant step that was taken this year, an important commitment kept by this government. The Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs announced Canada's full support, without qualification, of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. She confirmed that the government would adopt and implement it in accordance with the Canadian Constitution. The government will implement it in full partnership with first nations, Métis, and Inuit people.

As National Chief Bellegarde has made clear, this is about “collaboration and working together.” With respect to the member's question about a veto, the National Chief was also quite clear that a “Veto is not utilized in free, prior, and informed consent in the UN Declaration.”

I would also point out that the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the Mining Association of Canada have also welcomed the adoption of the United Nations declaration. Pierre Gratton, the president and CEO of the Mining Association of Canada, said this about Canada's adoption of the declaration: “We’ve been historically seen as a leader but then we had this funny situation at the UN where we were a dissenter on something that was so important to indigenous peoples worldwide.”

We agree.

Contrary to what is implied by the member's question, the full support of the United Nations declaration will lead to less confusion. The government's new approach and commitment to a renewed relationship with indigenous people will mean greater opportunity for investment, clarity for all concerned with regard to development projects, strong protection of the environment, and recognition of the rights of indigenous people. These are the kinds of benefits a new relationship can deliver.

To quote the hon. Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs:

...implementing UNDRIP should not be scary.... Recognition of elements of the declaration began 250 years ago with the Royal Proclamation, which was about sharing the land fairly. UNDRIP reflects the spirit and intent of our treaties.

With our commitment to full adoption and implementation of the UN declaration, we are continuing the vital work of reconciliation.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the confusion continues. We have the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs proudly going to the UN and proclaiming that the Liberals are going to implement the UN declaration without reservation. We have the justice minister who then says, “Sorry, it's a little bit unworkable and a little bit simplistic, and so it's not really going to work”.

Perhaps National Chief Bellegarde would not use the word “veto”, but we can imagine when we go into communities across this country that they have significant expectations about what this will mean. To be quite frank, they are not getting important messages from the government on how we are going to move forward and what the difference is going to be between consultation and accommodation, and on free, prior, and informed consent. Moreover, industry does not know either.

Therefore, I think the government has tremendous of work to do. I ask the parliamentary secretary again to please try to clarify right now what this difference is going to mean for communities across this country.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Government of Canada does not see any agreements or working relationships with indigenous people as impediments to resource development in Canada. These elements are complementary and part of a properly functioning, balanced, fair, and progressive society.

This is about government, indigenous communities, and industry striving toward consensus. The government is proud to move forward with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We are deeply committed to working in full partnership with first nations, Inuit, and the Métis nation, as well as with provinces and territories on how best to fully implement the United Nations declaration within the framework of our Constitution.

This is another step forward in renewing the relationship between the crown and indigenous people in Canada, one based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:37 p.m.)