SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 259 - Nov/30/23

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Nov/30/23 5:21:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in my town of Cobourg, we recently had an incident where an individual assaulted a person who had their child there, and the individual was out on bail the same day and committed another crime. It was because of the bail reform that the NDP supported earlier, and now this is going halfway back. Is the member at all regretful for his voting record?

66 words

Mr. Randall Garrison

Nov/30/23 5:22:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I first want to start by saying that I do quite often resent the implication that anyone in the House does not have sympathy for victims and what happens to them, or that anyone in the House actually supports crime and criminal activity. What I support, and my background was in criminal justice for 20 years before I came here, are things that are actually effective in addressing those problems. We know that if someone is let out on bail now with no supervision, with no access to programming, the chances they will reoffend while they are out on bail are very high. The bill before us, and what we are calling for, would provide for community-based bail supervision programs, which would help avoid exactly the circumstances the member raised in this incident.

136 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Nov/30/23 5:22:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member talked about making changes that would actually make a difference. One of the things that I had proposed in a private member's bill was to get those people who are incarcerated in federal institutions access to addiction treatment and recovery, but the NDP, unfortunately, did not support that. How does the member rationalize saying that he wants to vote for legislation that would actually make a difference and yet he will vote against a bill like that? He also supports bills like Bill C-75, which actually lessened the bail system, and we have seen from the stats how many more victims there are because of Bill C-75.

114 words

Mr. Randall Garrison

Nov/30/23 5:23:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that, of course, her private member's bill had a poison pill in it for people like me who want to vote for things that are effective. Does reform to the bail system cause crime? No, it does not, and reforms to the bail system in Bill C-75 did not increase the crime rate. There are lots of other very complicated factors we could look at about why that happened, but the Conservatives like to point to the headlines and not actually point to the things that really work when it comes to combatting crimes and preventing future victims.

112 words

Hon. Arif Virani

Nov/30/23 5:24:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-48

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the motion respecting Senate amendments made to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), standing on the Notice Paper be deemed adopted.

60 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/30/23 5:24:50 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. minister moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): We will go back to questions and comments with the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

65 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/30/23 5:25:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know that I can express the will of most members of the chamber, and I believe there is a great sense of disappointment that the Conservatives now, in the House of Commons, have chosen to not allow this debate to come to an end, unlike what the leader of the Conservative Party said last summer. Members will recall that the leader of the Conservative Party then said that all it would take is one day and the Conservatives would be happy to pass it through the whole system. This is a complete flip-flop, once again, by the leader of the Conservative Party. I wonder if my colleague across the way could provide his thoughts on the flip-flop.

122 words

Flip
Flop

Mr. Randall Garrison

Nov/30/23 5:26:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his comments, because I have the same reaction to this action by the Conservatives. It is a party whose leader said they would come back and get this done in one day. It has taken a bit longer than that, but we could get this done today, and so I would like to see someone propose the unanimous consent motion once again and see if the Conservatives will actually go along with what their leader promised previously.

87 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Nov/30/23 5:26:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the attempt to obtain the unanimous consent of the House. I would like to remind all my colleagues that when someone wants to take that approach, they usually inform the other parties beforehand. My party was not informed in this case. We would have supported that consent because the fact is we were not against it. I would just like to remind members that there is decorum here. This place is not just the government. There are elected members from all parties, and it is important to consult and inform colleagues from the other parties. I thank my colleague for his speech and I would like to know if he has any comments to make regarding that intervention.

127 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/30/23 5:27:15 p.m.
Watch

As the member pointed out, it is important to ensure that all parties are aware that a motion is going to be moved. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on a point of order.

42 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/30/23 5:27:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there has been dialogue among the parties inside the chamber and I suspect that if you were to canvass the House that you would find unanimous consent at this point in time, to see the message passed as the minister had proposed.

44 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/30/23 5:27:50 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. I declare the motion carried.

41 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/30/23 5:28:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just wish to recognize the time and ask for unanimous consent to call the time 5:30 p.m., so that we can begin private members' hour.

30 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/30/23 5:28:38 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Nov/30/23 5:29:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-354 Bill C-11

moved that Bill C‑354, An Act to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act (Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and French-speaking communities), be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois's Bill C‑354 seeks to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act so that the CRTC must consult with the Government of Quebec about the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec and with the governments of the other provinces about their French-speaking markets before carrying out its mandate and exercising its powers with regard to aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system that relate to those things. Essentially, Bill C‑354 seeks to protect Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and the francophone community in the enforcement of the new Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act. That involves organizing consultations with the Government of Quebec and the provincial governments before regulating aspects that relate to the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec. This bill responds to an official request from the Government of Quebec during the debates surrounding Bill C‑11 for the federal government to set up a mandatory, formal consultation mechanism with the Government of Quebec. Quebec wants to have its say before the CRTC takes any action that could affect businesses providing services in Quebec or the Quebec market. The motion adopted by the Quebec National Assembly in this regard specifies that Quebec intends to use all of the tools at its disposal to protect its language, culture and identity. Bill C‑354 also constructively responds to the federal government's disturbing decision last year to end the tradition of alternating the CRTC chairship between francophones and anglophones. The bill is also consistent with the House of Commons' recognition that Quebeckers form a nation. Quebeckers form a distinct people, a nation with a unique identity based on our history, and particularly on our culture and language. It is only natural, and even essential, for a nation to manage its culture. Access to Quebec's common public language and culture allows newcomers to participate in and enrich Quebec society, and to enjoy the same rights and obligations as every Quebecker. The idea of being sovereign in telecommunications management is not new. In 1929, Quebec Premier Louis-Alexandre Taschereau passed the law governing broadcasting in that province. However, instead of working with Quebec, in 1932, Ottawa responded to Taschereau's idea by creating the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, the forerunner of the current CRTC, under the Canadian Broadcasting Act. The idea of being sovereign in telecommunications management remained alive, despite federal interference. In 1968, Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson said the following: 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. Between 1990 and 1992, the Quebec minister of communications at the time, Liberal Lawrence Cannon, prepared a draft Quebec proposal that read as follows: 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. In 2006, that same Lawrence Cannon became a minister in the Conservative cabinet under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. On April 9, 2008, Liberal ministers Christine Saint‑Pierre and Benoît Pelletier sent a letter to the Conservatives in Ottawa—Josée Verner and Rona Ambrose at the time—to conclude repatriation agreements in the culture, broadcasting and telecommunications sector. This is what it said: The purpose of this letter is to express the will of Quebec to engage, as soon as possible, in discussions on concluding a Canada-Quebec agreement on the communications sector...and a Canada-Quebec agreement on culture. Considering the distinct culture of Quebec, the only French-speaking state in North America, we believe that concluding such an administrative agreement would make it possible to better reflect the specific characteristics of Quebec content in broadcasting and telecommunications, and would serve as recognition of the importance of protecting and promoting Quebec's specific culture. The Bloc Québécois is convinced that telecommunications and broadcasting are of capital importance for the vitality of Quebec culture. That is clear. That is why we are of the opinion that, ultimately, these sectors need to be regulated by Quebec. This should happen under a Quebec radio-television and telecommunications commission, a QRTC. That is the only approach that would allow us to have full control, to be masters of the decisions that concern our language and culture. Quebec must have the tools needed to promote a diversified Quebec offer in the television markets and on digital platforms, which are increasingly predatory. As the serious media crisis in the province shows, from the small regional newspapers to the restructuring of Groupe TVA, it is crucial to maintain a francophone diversity of information sources and plurality of voices, regardless of the size of the media group. Furthermore, the Internet deployment strategy must be better aligned with Quebec’s interests, particularly to ensure the right to a stable, affordable, quality connection. Quebec’s cultural development hinges on the ability to determine its own transmission terms, namely for television, radio and new media. Should the government of Quebec deem that a decision goes against the public interest, it is the National Assembly that would call for a review. The closure of radio station CKAC in 2005 illustrates the government of Quebec’s inability to influence decisions that directly impact its duty to develop, promote and disseminate our culture. Despite a unanimous motion from the National Assembly, adopted on March 10, 2005, calling for CKAC to stay on the air, the CRTC kept silent and allowed this historic radio station to shut down. Furthermore, this is not even a partisan issue in Quebec. All governments since the Taschereau era have argued for Quebec's independence in managing its telecommunications. It is therefore particularly frustrating to run into refusals or downright ignorance. The many times Ottawa has stayed silent demonstrate contempt, if not federal indifference, toward Quebec’s culture and its political institutions. That said, our right to develop our own culture will not be won through the courts. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly ruled that telecommunications and broadcasting fall under federal jurisdiction. However, the members of the House of Commons have the authority to delegate this administrative power if they are willing to do so. One such agreement already exists. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police delegated its powers to the Sûreté du Québec to protect the province. The Sûreté du Québec manages interprovincial heavy transportation and issues freshwater fishing licences. All it would take is a bit of political will to sign an administrative agreement that would change the fate of Quebec culture. If it so wished, the federal government could change the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act today to include such an administrative agreement. This is how EI pilot projects are integrated into the Employment Insurance Act. Introducing Bill C‑354 is a modest attempt to ensure that Quebeckers enjoy a modicum of respect when it comes to their right to culture and managing their telecommunications. It is the least that can be done. In an ideal world, the Quebec government would pass legislation to create a Quebec radio-television and telecommunications commission, a QRTC. The CRTC could then delegate the management of Quebec's licenses to the QRTC, which would regulate telecommunications and broadcasting companies that operate in Quebec. This would remedy the injustice that has persisted for a hundred years. The decline of the French language and culture is undeniable. It is now crucial that we take the necessary steps to protect them. We therefore invite members from all parties who care about Quebec culture and the francophone community to vote in favour of our bill.

1377 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/30/23 5:40:37 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Saint-Laurent.

9 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Nov/30/23 5:40:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the name is Louis-Saint-Laurent. I have nothing against the St. Lawrence river, but the name is a tribute to the former prime minister who, let us not forget, was the one who balanced the budget after the war. I am very proud to represent the riding named after him here, in the House of Commons. My colleague always has something interesting to say. I really like the historical aspects of his speech. He even pointed out what the Taschereau government did. We enjoyed it a lot. I will have an opportunity to speak to the issues and certain things that we want to clarify in about 10 minutes. My question is this: How does the member account for the fact that the current federal government did not want Quebec to be heard in parliamentary committee, despite Quebec's request?

143 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu

Nov/30/23 5:41:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is indeed deplorable. We see it in many different files. The Liberal government says that it consults Quebec, when in fact it does not listen to Quebec or consult Quebec, despite its claims. In an area like culture, it should be a given. That is why we are introducing this bill to establish a mandatory consultation mechanism for Quebec and the provincial governments in cases where regulations target their market.

73 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/30/23 5:42:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a deep admiration for the culture and heritage that has developed in the province of Quebec for generations. I believe it is very unique, and we want to encourage it and see it continue to flourish. I go to my own home province, and I have some very strong opinions on its diversity and our culture. The CRTC has consultation, and there is intervenor status for groups, including the Province of Quebec. I understand that they use that. Could the member provide his thoughts on the issue of an independent, or arm's-length, CRTC and the things they do?

104 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu

Nov/30/23 5:43:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just how independent is the CRTC? We want it to be as independent as possible, but in the case of Quebec's culture and Quebec's telecommunications, it is clear that there is no authority other than the Government of Quebec that can really understand Quebec's telecommunications and broadcasting needs. We are not necessarily saying that the CRTC never consults Quebec, but I think that there should at least be an official and mandatory mechanism ensuring that the CRTC always consults the Government of Quebec. The Government of Quebec has asked for that. A motion to that effect was adopted unanimously. As we said, every government of Quebec since the Taschereau government has repeatedly asked for that.

120 words