Serge Cardin

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Québec.

The comments by the last two Conservative colleagues who spoke confirm what we have thought all along: the Speech from the Throne and the budget are not very generous. The vision in the Speech from the Throne and the budget is completely disconnected from Quebec's reality.

While the Conservatives were on holidays to try to recalibrate and come up with innovative ideas for the Speech from the Throne and for the budget, the Bloc Québécois did a tour of Quebec with its finance critic. That hon. member went to my riding and to all the regions of Quebec. This was a comprehensive and skilful exercise.

The hon. members from the Bloc Québécois and all of their regional representatives worked hard. They addressed the public and consulted agencies and civil society. The conclusion was clear and any Conservative or Liberal MP with the nerve to do the same consultation would have learned about the needs and aspirations of the people, industries and community organizations in Quebec.

The throne speech and the budget speech are empty and do not offer much that is new. Nature abhors a vacuum and so do electors. The government's disapproval rate is roughly 73%. In Quebec, the Conservatives have a 17% standing in the polls. People are getting the Conservative government's message and the Conservatives are getting punished for it.

The last time I noticed that electors abhor a vacuum was in 1993, when the Conservatives had a record deficit of $42 billion. Today, their deficit is roughly $50 billion. History is repeating itself. I feel like I am watching an old movie that will have the same ending.

In 1993, the government was tired and exhausted, as is the current government, which does not have the ability to innovate and put forward policies that truly meet the needs of people.

We have heard a number of MPs accuse the government of not doing anything for women. Women have to negotiate and fight for pay equity. The 1993 election was the only occasion when women achieved equity under the Conservatives. Just two Conservative members were elected in all of Canada—a man, Jean Charest, and a woman, Ms. Wayne.

For the first time, there was equity in the Conservative party. I am afraid that this could happen; I almost hope it does.

As I was saying, following its consultations, the Bloc submitted proposals to the government, proposals that actually originated from the people and that also reflected the desire for sound management of Canadian taxpayers' money as well as Quebec's money. In fact, we contribute our share as well.

For all practical purposes, today's motion shows that federalism does not fulfill the goals and requirements of Quebec. Take, for example, the $2.2 billion in compensation for harmonizing its taxes, or the unfair treatment of the forestry industry, which only received $170 million compared to the $9 billion doled out to the automotive industry. That is what we are talking about. There is practically nothing to support the aerospace industry, nothing to meet Quebeckers' environmental expectations, and nothing for proposed program improvements to help the disadvantaged.

Besides those crucial factors, there are also needs. In the Bloc's proposals, there were some requests. Some may say we are constantly asking for things, but we are doing so for our population. These requests could very well have been filled, as there were specific proposals to go and get the money where it can be found. It is to be found in the gifts made to the oil companies. We all know that a lot of money is spent there. A lot of money also goes to the banks which made close do $5 billion in profits in the last quarter. Finally, there are the tax havens and all those who earn large salaries.

We suggested, for example, a 1% tax on those who earn $150,000 or more yearly, in order to go and get the funds that are necessary to meet the needs of the population. The needs of the Quebec population that we are attempting to meet are by and large the same as those of the Canadian population. Thus, the Bloc Québécois never works against Canada, but it always works for Quebec.

And that is how, finally, we will always act: we will protect the interests of Quebec, since the Quebec members of the party in power work rather for that party and its specific interests. As far as the environment is concerned, we all know that there is nothing to satisfy Quebec. To reduce greenhouse gases, the government is planning to invest in nuclear power in order to produce even more oil. However, if we want to reduce greenhouse gases, we have to do so by taking actual consumption into account, and not only production.

Large sums of money are also being spent on carbon capture. We have to find ways to reduce greenhouse gases. Nevertheless, continuing to produce as much while trying to capture gases is like suddenly abandoning recycling and composting in order to continue with the status quo by burying waste and solving nothing insofar as the environment is concerned.

The same thing, more or less, is being done with greenhouse gases by saying that we will capture them and put them in the ground. We don't even know what effect this could have down the road. The best way to reduce greenhouse gases is of course to produce less of them, as little as possible. Quebec, for its part, wants to become self-sufficient by using other fuels than oil and wants to become independent with regard to oil.

l will conclude by saying quite simply that a lot of people have been forgotten, among others the elderly in connection with the guaranteed income supplement the government refused to increase. Insofar as employment insurance is concerned, a lot of people will be hurt, both the employers and the employees who contribute to the program, since the government will be recovering $19 billion in the next five years to finance what it is not doing.

[Telecommunications, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, community Internet access centres are the foundation of an immense network that allows hundreds of thousands of people to use new technology. By cutting the community access program, the Conservatives are jeopardizing the survival of these centres and, as a direct result, they will be denying Internet access to those most underprivileged and to rural communities.

Does the government understand that it needs to maintain the community access program in order to prevent this exclusion?

[Telecommunications, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this is an unacceptable precedent. Whoever controls access also controls content. By opening up telecommunications ownership to foreigners without regulating content, the government is allowing foreigners to eventually have control over our culture.

Why does the government give in to the economic interests of big corporations at the expense of protecting our culture?

[Telecommunications, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, by overturning the CRTC's decision and issuing a licence to the Egyptian company Globalive, the government has started deregulating the telecommunications sector without consulting parliamentarians.

Will the government stop deregulating telecommunications ownership until the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology can examine the issue?

[Telecommunications, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in overturning the CRTC’s decision in the Globalive matter and announcing it intended to deregulate telecommunications, the government is opening the door to foreign companies that want to get their hands on our telecommunications firms.

Since the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology is going to study this important issue and since the economic and cultural implications are vital to the Quebec nation, will the government rein in its desire to deregulate telecommunications ownership?

[Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by congratulating my hon. colleague on a very eloquent presentation. Unfortunately, during questions and comments, I have seen two members from Quebec, one a Conservative and the other a Liberal, take the defence of the CRTC because they were under the impression that the CRTC was under attack. That is not it at all.

My friend from Honoré-Mercier should be reminded that a former colleague of his, Liza Frulla, told us that it was not likely that a body like the CRTC would be able to continue much longer to decide alone what is good for the provinces, and the French-speaking province in particular.

As for the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, another member from Quebec, she should perhaps be reminded that, not so long ago, the hon. member for Pontiac and Minister of Foreign Affairs stated the following:

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.

It is clear that the Conservative MP as well as the Liberal MP, who are both from Quebec, are turning their backs not only on their former colleagues, but also on their current ones by defending the CRTC to the detriment of a potential QRTC. Also, I might add, these two members from Quebec are thumbing their noses at and turning their backs on the Quebec National Assembly.

We will recall that more recently, in a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage dated March 23, 2009, Quebec’s Minister of Culture, Communications and the Status of Women, Christine St-Pierre, wrote:

Concluding a communications agreement would make it possible to better reflect the specific characteristics of Quebec content in broadcasting and telecommunications. It would also recognize the importance of protecting and promoting Quebec's cultural distinctiveness.

Quebec's culture is indeed a major argument, but a QRTC would also play a fundamental economic role. In fact, the Minister of Industry recently decided, in an order, that Globalife was a Canadian company, despite the fact that, in its final ruling, the CRTC had said that this was not a Canadian company and should therefore not be sold what it was seeking to buy.

This is a huge and very dangerous precedent. We are prepared to defend Canada when the interests of Quebec are also at stake.

How can a country allow a foreign takeover of its telecommunications?

Whoever has control over telecommunications has control, end of story. One day, that control will extend to content as well.

So we must understand, when we are talking about the CQRT, a Quebec radio-television and telecommunications commission, there are two important words to look at—in both the CRTC and the CQRT: telecommunications and radio-television, that is, broadcasting.

Telecommunications means the transmission, emission and remote reception of messages, signals, writing, images, sounds or information of any nature, by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic system, and any other means by which a message can be transmitted.

Under these conditions, it makes sense that a society would want to regulate this transmission capacity in order to have effective control over its territory.

Radio-television, the broadcasting component, refers to the use of waves to transmit a message, either sound over the radio or sound and images on the television. These are two important points in the definition of telecommunications, if a society wants to have effective control over its territory.

The Conservative government even wrote in its budget that it wants to sell effective control in its territory over telecommunications tools, which could be called the medium, and broadcasting, which could be called the message.

We must protect the CRTC in order to protect Canada and all of its residents. Quebec is not the only nation to want a decentralized CRTC; others want the same thing.

In 1991, the House of Commons research branch produced a document entitled Culture and Communications: The Constitutional Setting written by Mollie Dunsmuir. It stated:

In the early days of communications regulation, radio exemplified broadcast technology and telephones exemplified telecommunications. Radio seemed to fall most naturally under federal jurisdiction, as the transmission waves could not necessarily be confined within provincial boundaries, while telephone regulation seemed most amenable to provincial regulation because telephone “networks” were geographically controllable.

The inability to confine transmission waves within provincial boundaries was a major argument that justified federal jurisdiction. Yet many countries allow their provinces or regions authority over the airwaves. This is true of Germany, which has 15 provincial regulatory bodies and an association of regulatory authorities.

Spain has an audiovisual council for Navarre and another one for Catalonia. Belgium has two separate regulatory bodies, based on language: one Flemish and the other Walloon. So it is possible, despite the inability to confine waves, to regulate broadcasting at the provincial level.

Regarding Belgium and Spain, it is rather significant that the regulatory bodies are linked to the different cultures that make up those countries. Quebec's distinct culture amply justifies the creation of a regulatory body in Quebec, since those organizations basically regulate content.

It is also important to note that many countries have decided to separate telecommunications and broadcasting, opting instead for two separate bodies. Thus, in France, the Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel regulates broadcasting, and the Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes regulates telecommunications. This model prevents possible conflicts of interest between the regulation of broadcasting content and telecommunications content, one of which is the responsibility of the minister of culture and communication, and the other, of industry.

This model could work for Quebec. Considering the Conservative government's approach—granting ownership of telecommunications to foreign interests—it is our duty as Quebeckers to protect this area. In fact, the competition created by this approach would not be unfair, but rather fierce, because foreigners want to invest here.

In closing, I would remind the Liberal and Conservative members that there are people in their parties who agree with us.

[Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, my question will also answer my Liberal colleagues. In June 2005, the CRTC approved licences for SIRIUS Satellite Radio Canada and Canadian Satellite Radio Inc. to operate subscription radio services. The licence stipulated that 10% of its services had to be Canadian, 2.5% of which were to be in French.

Is that how the CRTC and the Liberal government of the day protected the French fact?

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, talk to Quebeckers about their government, and they automatically think of the Quebec government because that is the authority that provides most of their essential services.

Talk to people from other provinces about their government, and they automatically think of the federal government. That is the first thing that comes to mind. As such, they easily buy into a lot of what the federal government gives them. But people in Quebec want to do things their own way to best meet the needs of Quebeckers. The other provinces have a frustrating tendency to unquestioningly accept whatever the federal government hands them.

We have our own way of doing things, and when people ask us to do something, we do our best to make it happen. We collect money in lieu of federal services, and we provide Quebec-quality services, which are better.

In the end, what can we do? Quebeckers have a completely different vision. They are moving toward complete independence—sovereignty—because they want to be done with these disputes.

This is yet another reason for Quebec to take charge of all of its own affairs and opt out of fruitless debates in the House.

I am sure that a lot of members must find these debates tiresome. The solution is easy enough: if they stop acting the way they are acting, things might get easier. In the meantime, Quebeckers will progress toward the ultimate and best scenario.

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to once again recognize the contribution of the member for Mississauga South. There are conflicting ideas and positions because there is a very big disparity between the Conservatives' assessment and ours. We heard them. They are convinced that their assessment is the correct one.

There is about a 1¢ difference, but we believe that our assessment is the correct one. Furthermore, the former EI actuary supports us. For years, he gave the government exact figures so that it could assess the situation and, ultimately, so that it could dip into the EI fund.

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am one of those who think that everything is worth something and that we have to pay a fair price. That is not the case here. Obviously the hon. member can tell the rest of Canada that Quebec has voted against this. With the figures they are presenting, the premium is being subsidized.

We have more progressive policies in Quebec because we pay for them and the federal government never pays us more than our share. We are not here to beg the federal government for money. We are here to get our fair share. We do not intend to finance the rest of Canada for things that, in some cases, do not concern us. This matter does concern us, but it is not up to us to finance self-employed workers in the rest of Canada. They too have to realize that everything is worth something and that they have to pay what this insurance for sick leave and compassionate care benefits is worth. They will benefit from four forms of insurance for $1.73, while we are already paying 86¢ a year for two that are much more comprehensive and more in line with the needs of Quebeckers. Quebeckers are prepared to pay for what they get, but they should not have to pay for what they are not getting. It is only fair.

Everything is worth something and we will see what the Bloc Québécois is worth to Quebeckers in the next election. Through you, Madam Speaker, I invite the hon. member to come sell his plan to us in Quebec.