Geoff Regan

[Radiocommunication Act, November 2nd, 2012]

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.

[Science and Technology, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the National Research Council is closing the medical research lab in Halifax after promising partners that the lab would be safe for at least three years. The Institute for Biodiagnostics has improved patient care and created job opportunities for the expanding biosciences sector in Nova Scotia. Closing the lab will impact health care and halt groundbreaking medical research. It will also kill high quality jobs in Atlantic Canada.

Why will the minister not take immediate action and keep the lab open?

[Ethics, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said—and I am paraphrasing here—that the government would put an end to the influence of money in federal politics by banning corporate contributions. Now one of his ministers, the member for Labrador, has brazenly broken the law. He accepted over $5,000 in illegal donations, as well as $17,000 in free air travel.

After such an affront to our democracy, why is he still a minister?

[Vedanta Ashram Society, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, the Vedanta Ashram Society of Halifax will celebrate the 150th birthday of Swami Vivekananda. The society works to support the Swami's vision of harmony, goodwill and better understanding among all faiths.

As members of the society gather at the newly renovated community centre in Halifax, they will celebrate not only his life, but also the hope, love and acceptance they have achieved through the mission he founded.

I know all members in the House will join me in extending our best wishes to the Vedanta Ashram Society and to the South Asian community.

[National Philanthropy Day Act, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, the time for questions and comments, and that was a very appropriate comment. I am grateful for the House's support for this legislation and for all the comments we have heard.

[National Philanthropy Day Act, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and friend from the neighbouring riding of Kings—Hants, where Senator Mercer resides. I know that he was not rising just to solidify that vote in the next election. He already has that, but his point is well taken. It would be a positive move if the existing tax credit for firefighters, for example, were extended so that it was refundable, because at the moment, people who are low income would not receive it. That would be a very positive move.

[National Philanthropy Day Act, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who is also my neighbour in the Confederation building.

I agree that other measures are needed. We talked about a tax credit for certain volunteers. There are various ways we can help organizations that make significant contributions to our communities.

This bill is about a national philanthropy day, and that is important. As my hon. colleague knows, it is up to the government to decide on spending. All we can do for now is create a philanthropy day to indicate that it is very important to recognize people who donate their time or money to good causes.

[National Philanthropy Day Act, October 30th, 2012]

moved that Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like members to stay in the chamber and enjoy the wonderful speeches I am sure they are going to hear this evening on this topic of Bill S-201, the national philanthropy day act. I am very happy to be speaking to this bill. I hope that during the speeches from members of other parties, they might indicate whether they would be agreeable to a motion for unanimous consent to have the bill passed at third reading today. I will not move that at the moment.

I am very proud to sponsor this bill in the House of Commons and to offer my congratulations to Senator Mercer, who initiated this piece of legislation. He has committed a good portion of his life to various charitable efforts. The good senator has touched a lot of lives over the years in Toronto, Halifax and Mount Uniacke, where he now resides. He has lived in all those places over the years.

I also owe a debt of gratitude to colleagues from the government benches and the opposition benches of the NDP for their generous support of the bill and what it is trying to accomplish.

The all-party support we have seen for Bill S-201 shows the commitment of all sides of the House for the establishment of National Philanthropy Day.

We should all give our thanks to the countless volunteers who make Canada the most caring country in the world.

I am very pleased that the bill was reported back to the House by committee without amendments. I am pleased to hear about the strong level of support it received at committee and about the stories others in this place have shared, here and in committee. They are members who share a commitment to helping others through a wide range of fundraising efforts. I know that many members are involved in charitable efforts across the country.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage said, this bill is about more than Canadians helping Canadians, although it is certainly about that. It also recognizes that we step up when help is needed around the globe. Just look, for example, at the recent disaster relief efforts in Haiti, Japan, and East Africa. I am sure that there are Canadians involved along the eastern seaboard of the United States where they have been affected by Hurricane Sandy. We hope the devastation from that storm is finished or is about to be finished.

This act would designate the 15th day of November each year as National Philanthropy Day.

Let me recap the purpose of the bill. First of all, it would increase public awareness of National Philanthropy Day as a time to thank those who give throughout the year. Second, it would focus public attention on the major accomplishments made possible through philanthropic contributions. Third, it would honour key local individuals and corporations for their philanthropic endeavours. Fourth, it would recognize local fundraisers and volunteers, which is really important, and thank them for their time, their talent and their dedication, which is so critical in our society.

This type of nationally recognized day would encourage schools, community groups and individuals to become more aware of the impact of philanthropy and to get involved themselves as volunteers or donors.

Some organizations are having a tough time these days. Some of their volunteers are getting a bit older and have decided that they have given their time and are going to do something else now or take a break from their volunteering. Some organizations are having a difficult time getting new volunteers.

It is really important that we find ways to encourage Canadians to give the time they have. Most Canadians are very busy. They have busy lives, often with young families. They are running them off to soccer and hockey and so on. We need to encourage people to take part in volunteering activities.

This day would also be used to recognize and pay tribute to the great contributions philanthropy has made to our lives, to our communities, and of course, to our country.

My colleague from Sudbury knows about this, as the former executive director of the United Way in Sudbury. He was right when he said earlier in debate on the bill that he believes that National Philanthropy Day will heighten public awareness of the importance of charitable giving and volunteerism. It will also move us towards having nearly 100% of Canadians getting involved and getting engaged in charitable activities on a regular basis. Those are worthwhile goals he alluded to.

The first National Philanthropy Day was held in 1986 to celebrate the endless daily contributions individuals and organizations across the country and across the world make to countless causes and missions.

This year, more than 100 National Philanthropy Day events and activities are taking place across North America. Over 50,000 people are taking part.

Sixteen Canadian events honour philanthropists and volunteers in most major Canadian cities.

When Senator Mercer testified at the heritage committee of the House, on October 16, he pointed out that recent research revealed that the troubles we have with the economy have negatively impacted charitable giving. In difficult times, it becomes tougher.

A lot of Canadians have a history of digging a little deeper in tough times. It is just that fewer Canadians have had the ability, perhaps, to dig as deep during an economic slowdown.

As Senator Mercer said:

The number of Canadians giving to charities has stagnated, and donation levels are not rising in response to the increase in the need for the services that charities provide.

That is why he believes it is so important to recognize people who so generously give of their time, their energy and their resources.

Canadian giving has dropped for the last three years, according to Statistics Canada. The charitable sector, however, has over $100 billion in annual revenue. It is made up of more than 161,000 organizations in Canada. The numbers involved here are incredible. There are over a million paid staff and over six million volunteers. That is a huge chunk of this country's population. It is a remarkable number.

Both at home and around the globe, Canadians are recognized for their generosity and compassion. As members of Parliament, we all continue to be inspired by the dedication of volunteers who give freely of their time to improve the lives of others.

Through Senator Mercer's persistence, dedication and hard work, the Senate has passed the bill on several occasions in the past. However, it has always been sidetracked for one reason or another, whether it was elections or what have you. I hope that this time it will be passed by my colleagues in this House and given royal assent by our Governor General.

Every one of us is a beneficiary of Canada's generous spirit of volunteerism. I think of the ways I benefited as a young person, as a child, from hockey coaches, soccer coaches and teachers who went out of their way to give extra time to help out. I probably needed lots of extra time.

We can all think of ways we have benefited over the years. Today I benefit from the fact that my son has people in scouts. He is in Venturers now. Leaders in scouting and Venturers make contributions to my family with their great work.

The philanthropy I am speaking of is exemplified by organizations such as Beacon House, a food bank that serves the Bedford-Sackville area, part of which is in my riding, and Phoenix House, in Halifax.

My colleagues across the way are anxious to have the question asked, I think. I am getting a good sign about possible unanimous consent.

Large organizations such as Feed Nova Scotia, which collects and distributes food to over 150 food banks and meal programs, thrive under the caring spirit of Nova Scotians.

Nationwide, Canadians give more than two billion hours of their time a year to help others. Two-thirds of all Canadians donate to charitable organizations each year.

As members of Parliament, we know about the thousands of groups that do tremendous work in our towns, our villages and our cities. I know that all colleagues here are most generous with support for these groups. They have shown their support for Bill S-201.

It is in recognition of these immeasurable contributions that we look to recognize National Philanthropy Day every year, and with their support, we are about to see that happen.

[Foreign Investment, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed Canada-China investment agreement is radically different from other investment deals that Canada has signed. Experts believe Canadian taxpayers will assume more risks and face more constraints than the Chinese. Chinese companies can sue our provinces and municipalities and have the cases decided by arbitrators behind closed doors.

Why would the Conservatives cut a deal that would give China special advantages for decades?

[Privilege, October 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of my hon. colleague's submission. This is in fact a breach of privilege. This is not a case of seeking public feedback and of that feedback going to an individual MP's account. This is a case of one MP or that MP's office directing thousands of emails to another member's private MP account. That account was on his BlackBerry, therefore making it impossible to use that BlackBerry, to know what is on his schedule or to do his work during the day. That is clearly an interference with his work as a member of Parliament and a breach of privilege.