Maria Mourani

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He actually asked two questions.

As for a CRTQ, it is true that there was a Supreme Court decision. I would like to explain to him what happened at the time. There was a request for total repatriation of powers, which would have involved changing the Constitution. The Supreme Court refused, on the ground that the airwaves were a federal jurisdiction, so Quebec could not be given full powers. What should have been done was to request a change to the Constitution.

As we know, Ms. Marois is currently in favour of changing the Constitution on this issue. We are not asking for the Constitution to be changed, but we would like to amend the Broadcasting Act, which is possible. It is not unconstitutional; we checked. We would like an amendment that takes the Quebec identity into account. This would give Quebec some leeway under the law to ask Ottawa for a CRTQ.

In a way, what we are doing with this bill—and I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of this very innovative bill—is creating some space to allow for powers to be transferred to Quebec. This is being done currently with immigration, and also in other areas, such as coastal surveillance. It is possible to transfer powers. We are not asking for a change to the Constitution.

On the one hand, this belongs to Quebec. I fully support Ms. Marois' position of wanting to change the Constitution. But we are not the ones who can do so. Quebec and the provinces are the ones that can.

On the other hand, I completely understand my colleague's point about whether or not the minister can intervene. I do not agree with his opinion. In fact, the minister can give direction, and she has the last word. If the CRTC makes a decision, she can simply say that she does not agree with the decision.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do so. I do not want to offend the Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage, whom I really appreciate. It is my opinion and I respect his opinion. I have a lot of respect for the head of Canada. She is the head of Canada and I have a great deal of respect for her. However, she is not my leader, but that is another issue.

I will simply conclude by asking hon. members to vote in favour of this motion—which they will certainly do—and by asking the parliamentary secretary to convey these comments to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, so that she will provide directions to the CRTC to ensure that TQS, which is a general interest television broadcaster, can survive and still have information services.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I support this motion because we believe it is critically important for elected officials to make their position clear to the government and the CRTC. Providing locally or regionally produced news services must be part of the operating conditions for general interest television licence holders.

Nobody is trying to interfere with the CRTC's work. The CRTC must remain independent and must continue to apply the required telecommunications and broadcasting regulations. With this motion, we are discharging our responsibility as elected representatives of the people and expressing our vision for the evolution of general interest television, which has, historically, played a major role in the cultural development of our societies, particularly in Quebec.

Yesterday, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage unanimously passed a Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to defend the notion that local news and production must be maintained in general interest television. I will not read the motion, which is more or less the same as the one before us today.

Although I have not yet heard from my NDP colleague, I am pleased to conclude, based on what I heard yesterday, that he too will support this and that the motion will be agreed to unanimously, just as it was in committee. I think that everyone here wants to support it. We are all working toward the same goal: maintaining local news and production services.

Parliamentarians decided to take action on this matter yesterday and today because of the lack of leadership shown by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages in response to the statement by the new owner of TQS about getting rid of news services. We would not even be talking about this had the minister acted on the questions we asked in the House and given some direction to the CRTC.

She may claim to sympathize with the 270 workers that were laid off and lost their jobs—we saw what happened—but let us not forget the major impact, be it social, economic or cultural, this is having on the regions. Despite the sympathy she expressed, she kept repeating that this was a private transaction. That is disturbing. I think that comes from the old Conservative habit of looking at everything from a consumerism perspective, thus making everything a private transaction. That is disturbing.

Airwaves are public domain, and general interest television broadcasting has its own set of requirements. I could quote lawyer, journalist and Laval University Department of Information and Communications professor Florian Sauvageau, who recognized that it was inconceivable to maintain general interest television while at the same time eliminating all news content.

Let us ask ourselves a few questions. Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages have a burst of common sense and the sudden desire to listen? Will she give directions to the CRTC concerning TQS? It is all fine and well for the Conservative government to say that it will support this motion in principle, but it is not saying anything about TQS. It remains silent on that issue, which is very disturbing. We have just heard that it will support the motion, but will not discuss TQS and cases before the CRTC. It is one thing to approve in principle, but action is required. This reminds me of the motion on the Quebec nation; the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party supported it in principle, but no action followed. Principles are fine, but we want action as well.

In the case of TQS, for instance, like it or not, the minister's initial reaction was consistent with the rationale behind past statements of hers.

I am going to go back in time for a moment. On October 28, during the ADISQ gala, 18 artist and cultural business groups, including 17 that work mainly in Quebec, called on the minister to use her power to issue policy directives to the CRTC to avoid what they called the laissez-faire attitude of that body, which was shifting toward policies that put market forces ahead of the duty to protect culture and society. What was the minister's reaction?

We got her true response on November 6, when she addressed the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. The minister said, and I quote: “There must be an increased reliance on competition and market forces...”. She added: “I challenge you to be open to change, because change will come...”. That is scary. She then went on to say: “The status quo is no longer an option. We must create an environment that rewards excellence.”

In my opinion, the minister could not be clearer. She rejected the call that came primarily from Quebec' cultural community.

In this sense, the decisions of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and of the Conservative government are very consistent with the policies of the Canadian Alliance, their founding party. In fact, some excerpts from the dissenting opinion expressed by the Canadian Alliance in the Lincoln report are quite telling about their deregulation philosophy. That party said, and I quote: “We would remove content definition regulations.” It also added:

Canadian Alliance supports relaxing foreign ownership rules on Canadian industry, including telecommunications and broadcast distribution. We suggest conducting an immediate review to determine whether to reduce or completely remove these rules.

So, they are very consistent and I respect that.

The current Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was then the Minister of Industry, applied the same philosophy when he issued an order calling upon the CRTC to regulate telephony as little as possible. That action was condemned by Quebec's Union des consommateurs and by small providers of telephone services.

As we can see, where there is a will, there is a way. We are talking here about an order saying that the government is going to deregulate the industry and keep it that way. Now, we are told that we cannot do anything and that we must wait.

Will the minister and this government defend general interest television, not only in principle but also in action as we asked it to in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and as the motion calls for today? The question is there. We can give the government a chance, and we will see. Earlier, the critics did not want to broach the subject of TQS. So we are no further ahead in terms of information about TQS. I am a very optimistic person, and I believe in people's goodwill. I think then that the minister could perhaps listen not only to workers, but also to those of us here in the House who are asking her to act. I could also say that history tends to repeat itself, but we should not be pessimistic. We must stay positive and believe that, perhaps, the minister will do something.

In a completely different vein, but still fundamental to this debate, there is the issue of Quebec's jurisdictions. We believe that Quebec can no longer play the role of lobbyist. We have had enough. We have a unanimous motion from the National Assembly, and we are bringing the minister a message. We want full jurisdiction, and we are convinced that Quebec would be in a better position to properly defend issues related to its own culture, especially in terms of broadcasting and diversity of information.

Historically, Quebec has always asked that broadcasting be recognized as part of its jurisdiction.

In 1929, Quebec premier Alexandre Taschereau held a vote on the Quebec broadcasting act. The federal government responded by adopting the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act on May 26, 1932. It provided for the establishment of the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, which was instituted that same year and was the forerunner of the CRTC.

On February 25, 1968, Daniel Johnson clearly expressed why Quebec had to have a say in communications:

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

This vital component of Quebec's development has been defended by Quebec governments of all political stripes. In fact, for all Quebec governments, it is a cultural issue and, like the creators, the news people in conventional television contribute, in their own way, to the evolution of culture and the identity of a nation, which is shaped over time and by all regions of Quebec.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are allowing Canada to be driven by market forces—we have several examples and I provided a few earlier—rather than defending national identities. Our nation should not be led down a path that does not serve it well.

We will reiterate that supporting our national culture urgently requires, at a very minimum, the application of telecommunications and broadcasting policies that are the responsibility of the Government of Quebec, our national government, which must establish the regulatory framework in its territory. We now need a CRTQ and it is legally possible to establish it with people of good will. I refer my colleagues to our Bill C-540 and urge them to support it.

Quebec could put in place its own policies, particularly with regard to the definition of conventional television, diversity of news and approval of transactions in the broadcasting sector that reflect the values of Quebec society.

By recognizing Quebec as a nation, the federal government must take concrete action in that direction. It is not just a question of principle or hollow words. They may say that we have been recognized, that we should be happy and that things are good. No. Responsibilities and actions must accompany the recognition of our nation.

Unfortunately, the federalist members from Quebec, including the minister and my colleague, the Liberal heritage critic, whom I respect, have nothing to say about this.

The most incomprehensible of all, in my opinion, is the current Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, a former minister in Robert Bourassa's government, who had quite a bit to say about this issue and said it with a great deal of passion and panache. When he served as Minister of Communications from 1990 to 1994, he said:

Quebec must be able to establish the rules for operating radio and television systems, and control development plans for telecommunications networks, service rates and the regulation of new telecommunications services... Quebec cannot let others control programming for electronic media within its borders...To that end, Quebec must have full jurisdiction and be able to deal with a single regulatory body.

He also wrote to the federal ministers at the time:

While telecommunications are important to Canada's identity, they are even more vital to Quebec, whose future on this continent will demand greater effort.

Today, in his public statements, he is comfortable with a situation that he previously condemned. To my way of thinking, it is no surprise that Premier Bourassa lost the battle.

It is clear that this motion refers to the difficult situation facing TQS. As we have said before, the Bloc Québécois intends to submit a brief to the CRTC calling on it to keep the licence requirement to provide appropriate news coverage.

I therefore invite the minister and all my colleagues in the other opposition parties to follow our lead, even though I am beginning to have doubts about the Conservatives, because earlier the spokesperson did not want to go any further in the debate. I hope with all my heart that the minister will submit a brief to the CRTC.

In conclusion, I believe that the approval of the transaction between Cogeco and Remstar to purchase TQS will be a test of the effectiveness of the new policy on the diversity of voices that the CRTC introduced in January 2008. It is to be hoped that the CRTC will take the broadcasting policy for Canada into consideration. The 1991 Broadcasting Act provides that:

3(1) (i) the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should

...

(i) be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for men, women and children of all ages, interests and tastes—

That truly is diversity. In interpreting that section, we, like many experts, understand that a general interest television station must inform and enlighten, in other words, provide informed and enlightened news bulletins. As an example, I am convinced that the disappearance of the CKAC newsroom had a significant impact on the diversity of voices—and it would be equally significant if the TQS newsroom were to disappear.

I would remind the House that, sadly, in 2005, despite another unanimous motion in Quebec's National Assembly, the CRTC authorized the disappearance of the CKAC newsroom and, unfortunately, the Liberal heritage minister at the time did nothing to stop it. Thus, there is cause for concern. CKAC is one example, and I hope the same thing does not happen with TQS.

I would like to close on a topic—my colleagues will call it unrelated—that is very painful. I must mention it, because it is a very current issue. Speaking of nations, I cannot help but mention that the Quebec nation—without wishing to digress—has asserted itself perfectly well. When the government sends the Governor General of Canada to France to launch the festivities for the 400th anniversary of Quebec, one must wonder whether we are celebrating Canada's birthday or that of Quebec. Excuse me: ridicule has never killed anyone, but it certainly hurts. It is very upsetting for me, for many Quebeckers, and for my country, Quebec.

[National Defence Act, April 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I would be completely opposed to extending our presence in Afghanistan. In fact, I am in favour of immediately withdrawing our troops. That said, let us be honest—we must acknowledge that this government has asked the House a number of times to extend the mission, something the Liberals did not do. It should be acknowledged, but it is still at the government's own whim.

Now, if the act were changed, whatever government is in power would be obliged to go through this House to get a decision on whether or not we would be in Afghanistan. The decision made on the motion would be respected. I remember a time when we wondered whether a majority motion against extending our presence in Afghanistan would be respected by the government. That is another story.

What is happening now in Afghanistan is serious. We must think hard about our presence over there, because in my opinion, we have no business being there.

[National Defence Act, April 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for this question. This brings back painful memories of 2006.

As a member of the specially convened committee, I spoke to the then Minister of Foreign Affairs about this. In fact, in speaking to the people on site and the Red Cross representatives, I realized that American convoys were managing to get through areas under heavy bombardment. The Americans had agreements with Israel for safe corridors in order to move their nationals to the Canadian vessels moored outside Tyre.

Whether we like it or not, there was a need in that area: many Canadian citizens were trapped in the area; they were prisoners.

How did the United States manage to conclude agreements with Israel to obtain safe corridors, but we were unable to do so in order for our people to get to the port of Tyre and get on the ships? The minister acknowledged that there were many more Americans, Australians and other foreign nationals than Canadians on the Canadian ship.

We provide unilateral support to Israel but we cannot even manage to obtain some very small humanitarian corridors in order to get our people to our own ships. We have some work to do when we decide to repatriate our people. We have a great deal of work to do in this regard. I realize that the government was caught by surprise, but it should have taken action quickly, as did the Americans, French, Australians and others.

[National Defence Act, April 30th, 2008]

moved that Bill C-513, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (foreign military mission), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to debate Bill C-513, which I introduced on February 25.

This bill has to do with the process for deploying or placing Canadian armed forces on active service as part of foreign offensive missions. This bill would make the process for deploying our troops much more democratic.

We believe that the federal government should obtain the authorization of Parliament before deploying troops in foreign offensive missions. The deployment of troops is a government prerogative under the National Defence Act, but we think this act must be amended so that elected members determine whether or not Canada will participate in a foreign offensive mission. In fact, excluding parliamentarians from this decision amounts to a denial of democratic principles.

Let us look more closely at this bill. It amends sections 31 and 32 of the current National Defence Act, which govern troop deployment during foreign missions deemed offensive.

First, in section 31 we recognize the government's prerogative to place the Canadian Forces on active service. However, we amend this section so that the placing of the Canadian Forces on active service is subject to section 32, which we amend as follows.

First, the government must lay before the House a motion before sending Canadian troops on a foreign mission that includes or might include an offensive facet. This motion must be laid before the House within five days after the declaration of intention to place the Canadian Forces on active service is issued.

Second, once the motion is laid before the House of Commons, the House must immediately take up and consider the motion.

Third, the debate must not go longer than three hours, after which the Speaker must put the question.

Fourth, the placing of the Canadian Forces on active service takes effect only once the House of Commons has ratified the motion.

Currently, under these two sections of the National Defence Act, the power to place the Canadian Forces on active service is in the hands of the Governor in Council and therefore the government alone. The act also gives the government a great deal of latitude; in fact, the government can make such a decision when it sees fit. Moreover, Parliament has no responsibility for giving prior approval, although Parliament must be summoned within 10 days if it has been adjourned for more than 10 days.

Nothing in the current act requires the government to consult Parliament before deploying troops on offensive missions. I can give a good example of this. We remember the arrogance of the Liberal government under Jean Chrétien, who refused to hold a vote in the House on the deployment of 3,000 Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan between 2001 and 2006, despite repeated demands by the three opposition parties that the government hold a vote in the House on sending armed troops on offensive missions.

I therefore hope that I will have the near-unanimous support of this House, seeing as how at the time, the Conservative Party, the NDP and the Bloc were calling for a vote in the House.

I could give other examples regarding how the government sometimes consults Parliament and sometimes does not, as it pleases. The Korean war is a perfect example. The government did not seek the consent of Parliament before going into Korea.

Nevertheless, on June 30, 1950, the Prime Minister decided that Parliament could be consulted if new facts emerged. In the end, Parliament never voted on the deployment of Canadian soldiers to Korea. However, if there had been legislation and if there had been an amendment to the legislation, Parliament would have been consulted before the government deployed troops to Korea. Members could have voted on whether or not they wanted Canada to go to war in Korea.

The Gulf war is another example. Because it was a UN-sanctioned multilateral action, like the Korean war, Canada did not have to declare war officially. The House was not able to vote on the matter before troops and ships were sent to the Persian Gulf; it was not consulted. On September 24, 1990, the Minister of National Defence tabled an order in the House to the effect that Canada was deploying troops and ships to that region. On October 23, 1990, the House passed a motion that supported sending military members, vessels and aircraft, but that motion was nothing more than approval after the deployment.

These examples clearly show that whether or not the government consults the House depends entirely on its own whims.

The bill that I am sponsoring today would free the House from the government's arbitrariness, regardless of the party in power. The government would not lose the power to deploy the Canadian Forces. Deployment would simply have to be approved by the House to take effect. After all, the government's power, like it or not, comes from Parliament. Parliamentarians are the ones who passed that legislation, and I believe that parliamentarians also have the power to amend it.

It is now 2008. I think it is high time we modernized this legislation by making it more democratic, by making the process of deploying troops abroad more democratic. Let us not forget that the decision to deploy troops abroad is a serious decision because it puts human lives in danger. Such decisions must not be taken lightly. They have a direct impact on men and women who risk their lives in foreign countries, who risk death.

It also has a major impact on the lives of these people, their families, their friends, their loved ones, and their community, which is directly affected when these people go away. It is not just about leaving a place, about leaving family and children behind. When the troops left for Afghanistan, we saw heartbreaking scenes of men and women leaving their children.

Regardless of the causes and the ideological reasons justifying deployment, we are making serious decisions here in the House when we decide to send the troops to fight in foreign countries.

We must not forget that it also has an impact on the people in the places to which our troops are deployed with their guns and weapons, regardless of the ideology participants are trying to protect. It has a major impact. Civilian populations endure invasions and the presence of foreign troops on their soil. Every day, women, men and children die. We have people being killed, but we also have people living in utter poverty because they are in a state of war.

It is our responsibility to protect our people and our soldiers, but it is also our responsibility to protect the civilian populations wherever we decide to get involved.

When troops are sent abroad to engage in war and take the offensive, there is a risk that these men and women might harm civilian populations. It is our responsibility to consider these casualties, what I would call terrible human losses.

Furthermore, I would say that war not only has a human and social impact, but an impact on society as a whole. We see this quite clearly in Quebec right now. The latest polls show that 70% of the population is completely opposed to our presence in Afghanistan. This has a major impact on the lives of these people, even if they do not have a brother, father, uncle, cousin, or mother serving in Afghanistan. Every day, when they turn on the television they see war and violence. Whether we like it or not we are fighting violence.

I do not believe in fighting violence with violence. It is not a good image for the country in question. I am talking about Canada. Perhaps one day we will be talking about Quebec, but Quebec will not go to war.

It is an image. I want to tell hon. members something. When I went to Lebanon during the Israeli-Lebanese crisis, people told me that Canada is a country of peace and human rights. It is a country that stands up for human rights. They wondered, “What is happening to Canada? Why did Canada take a unilateral position with Israel? What is going on?” We project an image and our troops project an image. But we, as elected representatives, have a message. We project an image and we have our soldiers project that image. If we make bad decisions, it reflects on our soldiers in Afghanistan, Lebanon or anywhere else. They are currently not in Lebanon, but if they were there or elsewhere, it is important to consider what is going on here.

We make the military decisions, but we are not the ones on the ground with the weapons. Other people have to go there with their weapons and deal with the consequences of our decisions. We have to make our decisions properly and democratically to at least have the support of our constituents for the decisions we make.

The people are never wrong. They can be fooled, but they are never wrong. When 70% of people say they do not want Canada to be in Afghanistan, that means something. We must listen. I think it is our duty to have the ability to be humble and realize that, even though we are here, we are not gods and we do not know everything. We are here to make difficult but important decisions and we must make them together. The decisions should not be made by just one side, by the government, and suddenly, we are all at war. No, such a decision should be made by everyone in this House and then we should bear the consequences of that decision together, because it is the people who will also have to bear them.

Sending troops overseas has a major economic impact. I am a caring woman. Since I see I have only a minute left, I will speed up.

Economically speaking, war is very expensive. There is a great deal of poverty in Canada. There are a million children living in poverty. It would be good to use this money to address or perhaps eliminate poverty, instead of investing it in weapons.

In closing, with Bill C-513, we hope to enshrine in legislate the government's obligation to obtain the assent of the House before deploying troops overseas. We think this is a major democratic reform, and I strongly urge all members to vote in favour of this important bill.

[Broadcasting Industry, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this is such an important issue that Quebec's National Assembly has unanimously requested that the federal government take immediate action on this file. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who told the House that the CRTQ issue had been wrapped up, had received a letter dated April 9 from the Government of Quebec calling for negotiations for a broadcasting and telecommunications agreement.

Instead of telling us how sad she is, which is what she has been doing lately, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages accept her responsibilities and tell us if she received the letter and if she will conduct such negotiations with Quebec?

[Broadcasting Industry, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we now know that Remstar intends to eliminate its news service. However, TQS has a general interest television broadcasting licence, which requires the network to broadcast the news. We also know that Remstar wants to have the licence changed so that it can be exempt from this requirement.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages realize that removing news programming from a general interest television broadcaster is a major change?

[TQS, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, the announcement of potential closures of newsrooms across Quebec by the new owner of TQS represents a threat to the diversity of information. The minister is remaining silent, indicating that this is just a business transaction.

Will she take steps to protect the diversity of the news media throughout Quebec, or will she remain unmoved and simply stand on the sidelines with her arms folded?

[TQS, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages is responsible for broadcasting and therefore must ensure that the regions receive a variety of quality information, just like larger centres.

Will the minister acknowledge that a general interest television network such as TQS must have a newsroom and a news service if it wants to deliver appropriately on such a mandate in larger centres as well as in the regions?