Sylvain Chicoine

[Radiocommunication Act, November 2nd, 2012]

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.

[Radiocommunication Act, November 2nd, 2012]

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.

[Radiocommunication Act, November 2nd, 2012]

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.

[Canadian Heritage, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the railroad has played a key role in Canada's history.

Yet, as the country's 150th birthday approaches, the Conservatives are refusing to recognize Exporail as a national museum, despite the fact that a report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommended that the House recognize it as such in 2007.

Exporail is a source of pride for my riding, the entire region and railroad enthusiasts throughout Canada.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to give this museum the status it deserves?

[Veterans, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, veterans have been criticizing this for some time, and the Auditor General also confirmed it last week: when ill or injured military personnel leave the Canadian Forces, they have to cut through a great deal of very difficult, complicated red tape. Even departmental staff find the eligibility criteria unclear.

Instead of repeating the same speeches in the House, why does the minister not listen to the concerns of veterans and the Auditor General?

[Telecommunications, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's telecommunications industry is booming. It is helping businesses become more competitive and giving people better ways to communicate. However, there is a downside to the industry too.

People I consulted told me that they were upset about telecommunications towers going up near their homes since they were never consulted. In Châteauguay and Mercier, a developer did not consult the municipalities at all, nor did it check their development plans before building towers in residential areas. When I consulted more widely, I received letters from people across Canada who were having the same problems in their regions.

I therefore introduced Bill C-429 to create stricter guidelines for telecommunications antenna development. I believe that, at the very least, people and local governments should be consulted before any antenna development projects go ahead. The first hour of debate will take place this Friday. I hope that all members will support my balanced bill, which addresses public concerns without hindering the development of the industry.

[Veterans, October 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the lack of answers shows that the Conservatives are not doing their job when it comes to managing military equipment, nor are they any better at managing programs for our veterans.

We learned recently that funeral directors often have to help pay for the funerals of our veterans who cannot afford their own funeral. A funeral costs between $6,000 and $8,000. The Conservatives contribute $3,600. Giving our veterans a ceremony that is worthy of the sacrifices they have made for this country is the very least this government could do.

How could the Conservatives have allowed it to come to this?

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and comments.

It is hard to know what the social cost of all the changes to these many acts will be. More than 40 acts will be affected. If we consider Bill C-38, we are still unable to assess all the changes that will result from that bill.

Some enormous changes can be anticipated. Asking us to study 40 amended acts in a single bill like this is a tall order. Enormous social costs will be incurred as a result of these changes. However, we will not be able to study this effectively or properly. That is the problem with this bill. The government wants to make major changes, but it also wants to conceal them so that we cannot study them properly. That is scandalous.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and his entirely warranted comments.

Unless I am mistaken, the government announced those changes in Davos, outside the country, right after an election campaign. It indicated that it would push back the age of eligibility for employee retirement pensions from 65 to 67. Consequently, many people will indeed be in enormous difficulty because they will have to reach the age of eligibility. I am thinking of those who do physical work, those who work in the construction industry. They are in an extremely difficult situation and will have to wait two more years to receive their pensions. That is utterly inconceivable. When you do physical work, it is hard to wait any longer to retire.

My colleague also mentioned that this would affect many low-income individuals with reduced mobility, because they will have to wait two years and will probably no longer be able to work. Then they will be dependent on provincial programs. Those programs will have to absorb the cost of this change.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am in the habit of beginning my speeches by saying I am extremely happy to speak to a bill. In this case, however, with a time allocation motion having been moved, I have to say I am extremely disappointed for my colleagues who would also have liked to make the voices of their constituents heard in this House and who will be unable to do so. It is extremely disappointing to see that for at least the 20th time, time is being limited, and for a bill as gargantuan as this. It is simply scandalous. I am therefore extremely disappointed to be debating a bill that I would also describe as antidemocratic for the two reasons I have just mentioned.

Bill C-45 is the second omnibus bill introduced by the government this year—the second bill of this kind in less than seven months. This is certainly a record. At nearly 450 pages long, this is their second titanic bill. We have to ask ourselves whether the government has an iota of respect for democracy and parliamentary procedure. The answer is self-evident: no, it does not.

Why do I say this bill is antidemocratic? Because Bill C-45 is again going to amend over 40 different statutes, in addition to creating a new one. As was the case for Bill C-38, the various pieces of legislation this bill contains have nothing to do with one another. The bill will amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Pension Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Grain Act, and more.

That is why, since the beginning, we have been calling for this bill to be split into several parts, as the leader of the official opposition proposed. The government quite simply has an obligation to agree to that proposal and refer the bill to 13 different committees, so that each of the parts that relate to each committee can be examined effectively and the committees can be allowed to hear the appropriate experts. This an obligation to which the government should be held, in view of that suggestion. The parliamentarians on those committees must also be allowed to present the amendments that are needed to make this bill acceptable.

The government prefers to bundle all these legislative changes into a single bill that will be examined by a single committee and ultimately submitted to a single vote. This is a farce; it is contempt for parliamentary democracy. This is the same thing that happened when the government forced its elephantine bill through Parliament: it is allowing us no opportunity for a thorough examination. The government is preventing the opposition from doing its job, which is to oversee the work on government bills. Instead of showing Canadians that a Conservative government has to be transparent and accountable, the Conservatives have decided to do the exact opposite. What they are proving, as I said, is the extent to which they hold parliamentary democracy in total contempt.

The Conservatives moved a time allocation motion this morning. I do not know how many they have now made since the beginning of this Parliament; I have simply stopped counting. If it were up to them, they would fax the bills to our offices and we would show up here two or three times a year to vote two or three times on a few bills, without examining them adequately. This is quite simply scandalous. Transparency and accountability, to this government, simply do not exist. They seem to be allergic to those concepts. They simply do not want to hear about it.

The Conservatives are introducing a bill like this to have hundreds of changes enacted, changes that I would describe as completely radical, without consulting Canadians—and yet consultation with voters and accountability of the government to the House that represents them are two of the fundamental principles of our parliamentary democracy.

We are not the only ones who think the government is lacking in transparency and accountability. We need only look at what the Parliamentary Budget Officer is having to do to get the information he needs. His job is to assess the budget measures that are in Bill C-38 and their impact. I wager that it will be exactly the same situation for Bill C-45. The government will do everything it can to throw obstacles in the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s way.

The Conservatives are big on giving bills grand titles that mean absolutely nothing, to my mind, while at the same time spending tens of millions of dollars on advertising for propaganda purposes. They have called this bill the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012. The title they have come up with may be a punchy one, but there is nothing in this gigantic bill that will create jobs or stimulate long-term economic growth.

Working people and their families are still going through hard times because of the 2008 recession and the current economic slowdown. They need the government to do something to help them get through these hard times.

The government’s response to their problems is a wonderful “economic action plan” that is eliminating more jobs than it creates. At the end of the day, the only people who are benefiting from the Conservatives' action plan are their friends in the oil companies. With this bill, the million and a half jobless Canadians are being left completely to their own devices by the government.

Bill C-45 will create no jobs, and we are not the only ones saying that. The Parliamentary Budget Officer contends that the budget will result in the loss of 43,000 Canadian jobs. In reality, the budget will cause the unemployment rate to rise. Canadians deserve a government that can create jobs, not raise the unemployment rate.

The measures in the budget are going to affect millions of Canadians. The Conservative government is imposing those measures at the same time as it is doing nothing to combat youth unemployment. As well, it is asking people to work longer in order to be eligible for old age security benefits.

According to the Conservative government, Canadians do not work enough. It is therefore going to cut paid holidays by changing the method of calculating how they are paid. Employees will no longer be entitled to holiday pay for a holiday that falls within the first 30 days after they are hired. As well, employees who are paid on commission will have to work for at least 12 weeks before they are entitled to holiday pay. Government employees are also affected significantly by this bill—as if they had not been affected enough already by the current and upcoming job cuts.

The Conservatives have poisoned the atmosphere in the public service because of how they have managed these changes. This is very serious, but it does not seem to bother our colleagues opposite. They keep hammering away, raising employees’ contribution rates to 50%, regardless of when they were hired. The retirement age will be pushed back from 60 to 65 for any employee hired after January 1, 2013. At present, public servants can take early retirement with no penalty after 30 years of continuous service. However, with this bill, employees hired after January 1, 2013, will be eligible for early retirement after 30 years’ service only if they are over the age of 60. Employees aged 55 and over with 25 years’ service or more will be eligible for a reduced pension.

We are very concerned about this. One group of workers will have to work longer in order to be entitled to the same pension plan as other employees, which is simply unfair.

The main job creation measure in Bill C-45 is the implementation of a temporary hiring tax credit for small businesses. In my opinion, this measure is insufficient because it gives employers a maximum credit of only $1,000, which is available only for 2012. In other words, once the bill has been passed, the year will be almost over and the measures will have a very limited application. Despite its flaws, we support this provision.

All these measures, which will be of no help to Canada's labour market, come on top of the major cuts the government is making to employment insurance. We questioned the Minister of Human Resources to try to make her listen to reason. She did an about-face and changed her approach, but the new approach is not much better.

The cuts to old age security will cost people up to $34,000 in benefits. Health transfers to the provinces will also be reduced by $31 billion.

It is important to remember that 100 inspectors lost their jobs and 300 positions at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency were cut, which led to the biggest tainted beef crisis in Canadian history. Why? It is because the Conservatives did not listen to Canadians when making these many changes. This is no longer the Canada that Canadians believe in.

We will not let the government change the laws, policies and programs that Canadians believe in and that they are entitled to. We are going to stand in the government's way. The NDP has an economic plan to improve the health care system and services for Canadians. We are therefore going to oppose many measures in this bill.