44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 30, 2023 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 5:44:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the NDP finds my colleague's bill very interesting.
I am going to ask him a practical question. Whether we are talking about the CRTC or a Quebec version of the CRTC, teenagers and young adults do not watch Canadian or Quebec television at all.
How can we suggest Quebec and francophone content when they are listening to music on Spotify, looking at images on TikTok and watching videos on YouTube? What can a Quebec or Canadian CRTC do to change this, which, in my opinion, is a more fundamental issue?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 5:44:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a lot of talk these days about the need to regulate the Internet and digital platforms. I agree with my colleague that this is of prime importance. There is a bill on the way, and apparently a deal has been struck with Google. It is not exactly what we wanted.
Regarding the CRTC, I think it absolutely has to consult Quebec as it works to regulate digital platforms. This is of crucial importance to Quebec. For example, I believe there are 29 television shows in Quebec with a viewing audience of over one million people. In the rest of Canada, only two shows have that kind of audience.
Quebec is really—
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 5:45:54 p.m.
- Watch
We have to resume debate.
The hon. member for Markham—Stouffville.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on September 19, Bill C-354, an act to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act regarding the cultural specificity of Quebec and the Francophonie was tabled and read for the first time. From the outset, I would like to thank the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île for giving me the opportunity to reiterate our government's commitment to supporting the French language.
Bill C-354 aims to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, and this is closely tied to the government's ongoing work to ensure a broadcasting system in Canada that reflects the evolution of our digital world and in which all Canadians, including Quebeckers and members of the Canadian Francophonie, see themselves represented. In fact, closely linked is an understatement. The government's efforts have already been going very much in the same direction as the objective of this bill.
On February 2, 2022, our government introduced Bill C-11, aimed at reforming the Broadcasting Act so that Canadian laws reflect the evolution of our digital world. The latter aimed to clarify that online broadcasting services fall under the act, to ensure that the CRTC has the appropriate tools, to encourage greater diversity and inclusion in the broadcasting sector and to better reflect Canadian society.
The legislative process surrounding Bill C-11 took a very long time. Indeed, one year to the day passed between the initial tabling of the bill in the House and its adoption at third reading by the Senate. Both the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications spent many hours dissecting, analyzing, hearing from witnesses and refining Bill C-11. During the same legislative process, several modifications were made to Bill C-11 to strengthen the commitment to the French language and official language minority communities.
The Broadcasting Act, as recently amended, put in place new guarantees to ensure continued support for the production and broadcast of original French-language productions, the majority of which are produced in the province of Quebec. What is more, the CRTC is required to interpret the Broadcasting Act in a manner that respects the Government of Canada's commitment to promoting the vitality of Canada's French-speaking and English-speaking minorities and supporting their development. Added to this is the fact that the act provides that regulations must take into account regional concerns and needs. It should also be noted that the government is already actively consulting the provinces and territories, particularly when it comes to broadcasting.
At each stage of the process surrounding the implementation of the Online Streaming Act, the provinces and territories were consulted. In particular, the government consulted its provincial and territorial counterparts as part of the consultations related to the decree of instructions proposed to the CRTC concerning the implementation of the law.
The final decree also contains various instructions to support the official languages of Canada and official language minority communities. The decree recognizes, among other things, the minority nature of the French language in Canada and North America and the fact that the broadcasting system should promote the development of Canada's official language minority communities and promote full recognition and use of French and English in Canadian society. A section was even added to the final version of the decree to support the creation and availability of programming in French.
In addition, for its part, the CRTC has published a road map describing the main stages of the implementation of the act and is already actively consulting the public. It should be noted that as an administrative tribunal, the CRTC already holds in-depth consultations before making decisions under the rules of practice and procedure that it adopted in order to respect the principles of procedural fairness and of natural justice incumbent upon it. Provinces and territories have the opportunity to participate in CRTC consultations. To this end, the provinces and territories, including Quebec, can already present observations to the CRTC on issues of provincial interest during hearings and consultations.
It is important to specify that the Government of Quebec has the right and already uses its right to intervene in the CRTC's consultative processes. The Broadcasting Act provides for three forms of consultation, depending on the decisions it is considering. They are, in no particular order, one, with official language minority communities on any decision likely to have a detrimental effect on them; two, with CBC/Radio-Canada on its conditions of services; and three, with any interested party for decisions regarding conditions of services. The latter is an open consultation, where provinces and territories and, in fact, any interested intervenor can put forward their opinions and concerns.
In other words, the addition of the consultation obligation provided for by Bill C-354 could raise concerns that are being addressed in the course of the work of the CRTC and under the requirements of the Broadcasting Act. An obligation for the CRTC to consult elected provincial governments could also have an impact on public confidence and the independence of the CRTC. It is important that we are all mindful of not just the independence of the CRTC but the importance of that independence.
As outlined, “The CRTC is an administrative tribunal that regulates and supervises broadcasting and telecommunications in the public interest. [It is] dedicated to ensuring that Canadians have access to a world-class communication system that promotes innovation and enriches [the] lives [of Canadians].”
Further to this, under the section of the CRTC's own website entitled “We listen and collaborate”, it states that, in order to “fulfill [its] mandate, [it] must understand the needs and interests of Canadians who make use of broadcasting and telecommunications services.”
In conclusion, the government supports and will continue to support the French language. The Online Streaming Act and the act to amend the Official Languages Act are concrete examples of our commitment to the French language. Once more, the government regularly consults the provinces and territories, including Quebec.
The minister has consulted her counterparts on numerous occasions when it comes to regulating the broadcasting sector. The government will welcome any questions from members regarding Bill C-354 as the debate on this legislation continues.
1051 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on a bill introduced by my Bloc Québécois colleague.
We obviously agree with the principle that Quebec should be heard in this situation, and I will tell you why. We need to go back to last February when the Government of Quebec, through its culture minister, called on the federal government in Ottawa, the Liberal government, to listen to what it had to say and to consult about Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.
I will read the letter that Minister Lacombe sent to his federal counterpart. It says, “It is essential that the distinctiveness of Quebec and the unique reality of French-speaking markets be properly considered in Bill C-11 and in its implementation by the CRTC. In that regard, I want to reiterate our requirement that the act include a mandatory, formal consultation mechanism with the Government of Quebec for that purpose.” Furthermore, Quebec “must always have its say before instructions are given to the CRTC to guide its actions under this act when those actions could affect businesses that provide services in Quebec or the Quebec market.”
That was from the letter that the Minister of Culture sent to his federal counterpart on February 4. The government's response? Radio silence. It eventually acknowledged receipt of the letter, but that is all. The government never stepped up to be proactive and hear what Quebec had to say on the matter. In fact, the National Assembly went so far as to adopt a unanimous motion calling on the House of Commons to consult Quebec in a parliamentary committee so that it might voice its demands with respect to Bill C‑11. Unfortunately, the Liberal government's response was once again complete and utter radio silence.
We Conservatives brought the voice of the National Assembly to the House of Commons not once, twice or three times, but about 15 times. We did it right here during question period all the way from February 14 to March 7. My colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles and our political lieutenant for Quebec, and I asked the government 15 questions about why it was refusing to hear from Quebec in committee. Of course we did. When a national assembly speaks with a unified voice and a government demands to be heard, that is the very foundation of parliamentary democracy. People deserve to be listened to, all the more so when a government like the National Assembly and its 125 elected members demand to be heard. Of course they should be heard. They were not heard, however. It has been radio silence here, and nobody else has said a word either.
That is too bad. We wanted Quebec to be heard during the consideration of Bill C‑11, but that never happened. However, my colleague for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles and I raised the issue in the House about 15 times during question period. We also took the debate to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage at its meeting last March 10, when I moved a motion specifically asking that Quebec be heard on this bill. Unfortunately, but predictably, the Liberal Party refused.
Quite surprisingly, even the Bloc Québécois voted against the motion we brought forward at that meeting, which asked that we reconsider the bill and hear from the Government of Quebec on the matter, because the Senate had proposed quite a lot of amendments. Strangely, the Bloc Québécois did not vote in favour of our request. That is too bad.
For these reasons, we certainly want to hear what Quebec has to say about its cultural distinctiveness, particularly in the context of Bill C-11. Speaking of which, let us keep in mind that yesterday, the government puffed out its chest and made a financial announcement that it had secured $100 million from Google. Interesting. That is exactly what the government could have gotten a year ago. That is basically what Google offered. In the end, it took a year to come up with pretty much the same proposal that Google had made.
On the radio this morning, many people were wondering whether Radio-Canada would have access to the $100 million. The answer came this morning in parliamentary committee, thanks to my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, who asked specific questions to find out where things are headed. The minister quite clearly confirmed that Radio-Canada would be among the media receiving part of this sum, which is precisely the opposite of what the Quebec government was calling for again this morning through its culture minister, Mathieu Lacombe.
Now we have a bill that has been introduced. However, the part of the conversation that cannot be ignored is the fact that we Conservatives have been asking for weeks and weeks for Quebec to be heard. The government refused to listen. We asked for this in parliamentary committee and, oddly enough, the Bloc Québécois voted against it, which was unfortunate. Now, however, the Bloc is introducing this bill.
For us, it is important that linguistic minorities be heard and that provincial governments tell us what they have to say on the matter. These things are not mutually exclusive. It goes without saying that minority language communities must be heard. That is actually part of the legislation governing the CRTC, but we still need to go a step further. We must ensure that all avenues are preserved.
New technology means that people can go anywhere. Earlier, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said that young people no longer watch television, or at least they do not watch it like we used to do. Now they can go on Spotify or on any other global platform. Indeed, this poses some challenges. That is why we need to pay even more attention to linguistic cultural minorities in every community and every province.
I will remind members that we asked for Quebec to be heard. This is particularly important because we are talking about Quebec, which, as we know, is the home of the French fact in North America. As we know, the French language is currently vulnerable, and always will be. Now, with numbers to back it up, it is clear that French is under threat in the province of Quebec, particularly in Montreal, where more than half—or close—of the province lives. We must remain vigilant. We must wage a constant battle to ensure that Quebec does not lose ground.
An editorial in Le Devoir said that Quebec should definitely have a voice in the study of Bill C-11. I would like to quote a February 16 editorial written by Louise-Maude Rioux Soucy, who said, “The National Assembly's unanimous adoption of a motion demanding ‘that Québec be officially consulted on the directions that will be given to the CRTC’ makes perfect sense”. That is exactly what we Conservatives have been asking for in the House and in committee, and the author of the editorial confirms it by saying the following:
That is also the opinion of the Conservatives, the Legault government's objective allies in this inelegant showdown. It is up to Quebec to define its cultural orientations in order to protect its language, culture and identity. BIll C-11, like Bill C-18, which seeks to ensure the fairness and viability of the Canadian digital news market, cannot escape this imperative. Minister Lacombe is right to speak up.
That sounds a lot like what we Conservatives have been saying for weeks and weeks here in the House and in parliamentary committee.
This bill will obviously be studied in committee. It needs to be examined. There are a few items that need to be clarified. We believe that it contains a lot of vague elements and that definitions need to be incorporated. We will have the opportunity to delve deeper into the bill when it is studied in committee.
In closing, I cannot overlook the extraordinary affection that our leader, the member for Carleton, has for the francophone community and especially for Quebec. I will quote from the speech he delivered at our national convention in Quebec City. He said:
Quebeckers are fighting to preserve their language and culture.... That is why Ana and I are determined to speak French to our children and to send them to a French school. That is also why I voted in the House of Commons to recognize the Quebec nation. I will always be an ally to Quebec, the Acadian people and all francophones across the country. A less centralized government will leave room for a greater Quebec and greater Quebeckers.
It was the leader of the official opposition who said that. I also want to note that for the leader of the official opposition, the member for Carleton, Quebec is a model that should inspire English Canadians. Once again, I will quote the speech he delivered in Quebec City.
He said, “This business of deleting our past must end.” He also said, “And this is a matter on which English Canada must learn from Quebec. Quebecers—and I’m saying this in English deliberately—do not apologize for their culture, language, or history. They celebrate it. All Canadians should do the same.”
Those are the words of the future Prime Minister with whom I am very proud to serve.
1618 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to this important issue and this very interesting bill, which was introduced by our colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île. I thank him for initiating this debate.
I am also very proud to be part of a political party that has recognized Quebec as a nation for many years, even before this Parliament did so. Other political parties did so too. We just heard the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent talk a little bit about that a few moments ago. I am not just mentioning it because he was motioning to me that I should emphasize that. It is true.
What is a nation? I am not going to give a sociology lesson, but I think that we can all agree that the things that define a nation are language, history, culture, institutions, lifestyle and other factors. Some of the essential components of culture are the singers and songwriters, music and TV shows we are exposed to. I was lucky to grow up in a house where we were surrounded by books, by Quebec and French literature, as well as by music by Quebec and French singers and songwriters. We listened to Félix Leclerc, Georges Brassens, Diane Dufresne, Claude Dubois and many others.
Because we were immersed in this atmosphere, we fell in love with the French language, with Quebec culture, with our Quebec songs and TV shows. Now I am about to say two things that will give away my age. First of all, when I was a kid, if we wanted to change channels, we had to get up off the sofa. There was a little dial on the television set, and there were not many stations either. Second, I am of the generation that grew up watching the original Passe-Partout.
The whole atmosphere of Quebec television and music shapes each generation and creates cultural touchstones. This builds connections between people and communities. We had these major television events that everyone tuned in to watch. They often reached the rest of Canada too if they were broadcast by Radio-Canada. The TV show Les Beaux Dimanches, for example, featured classical music and theatrical plays. It was broadcast everywhere.
These were major television events. It is important for us to have them, because it is important to preserve social cohesion and this bond that unites all Quebeckers and, if possible, all francophones across Canada. However, that bond is eroding over time. In my family, there are four children between the ages of 13 and 23. Their reality is completely changing, completely different. As a parent, I remember that the last big TV show in my house was Les Parent. We watched it as a family with the kids. There was also Les Bougon at one point. There is also Tout le monde en parle, which is still a great television event.
Of course we need a way to ensure that the CRTC's regulatory framework respects the linguistic and cultural requirements of Quebec, which is a nation. What Bill C‑354 proposes today is not all that complicated. It proposes that Quebec be consulted before any regulations are made and come into force if they relate to Quebec's cultural distinctiveness. This is no big deal. It is nothing revolutionary. I think it makes a lot of sense. It is just plain common sense, which should make my Conservative friends happy. We should be able to go knock on the door of the Government of Quebec to let it know about regulations that will impact broadcasting in Quebec, so that we can gather its feedback and figure out a way to work things out. I do not think that is asking too much at all.
As a New Democrat, I find it interesting that the Bloc Québécois's bill states the following: “to provide that the [CRTC] must, in furtherance of its objects and in the exercise of its powers, consult with the Government of Quebec or the governments of the other provinces, as the case may be, before regulating aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system that relate to the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec or that concern French-speaking markets”.
The bill therefore includes francophone minorities outside Quebec. That is very important to us, too, because this is not exclusive to the Government of Quebec, and it could be just as important for the CRTC to consult francophone communities outside Quebec, such as New Brunswick Acadians. Manitoba also has a sizable francophone community. This can have repercussions for those communities.
I think that, when Bill C‑354 goes to committee to be studied and improved by amendment, we absolutely have to make sure that representatives of francophone communities outside Quebec and Acadian communities can come and be heard. They should have a chance to tell us how they see this, whether they think it is a good thing, what the obligations should be and under what circumstances the CRTC would have an obligation to consult them or their provincial governments. This is something that matters very much to the NDP caucus. This is the kind of thing we will want to clarify, verify and maybe amend in committee.
I also think that the committee's study should include some reflection on the rules governing radio and television broadcasting of content in indigenous languages. There are two official languages, of course, one of which is and always will be endangered and vulnerable, given our demographic position in North America. However, there is also the recognition of indigenous nations, which are producing more and more interesting content in television and especially in music. I was at the ADISQ gala recently, and some very successful, talented people won awards. How can we make sure we do not forget about the cultural vitality of many indigenous nations, the Métis and the Inuit? They also need to be taken into consideration to ensure they are not shunted aside and forgotten, as they were for far too long in the past.
I think we also need to collectively reflect on how to make francophone and Quebec content more attractive, but also more accessible and discoverable. There are some absolutely extraordinary musical works, TV shows, videos and movies out there. How do we make sure that they are seen by our young people, teenagers and young adults? How do we make sure that this content, which is truly a reflection of who we are here in Quebec, Canada or North America, can be seen, heard, listened to and shared?
My fear, which I shared a bit earlier today, is that we do not live in the same environment as the one I grew up in, where I had to get up off the sofa to change the channel. The vast majority of the content that is promoted to our young people comes from the U.S. and is in English. I think that we need to reflect on this and find a way to give make these works and this Quebec and francophone content easier to access.
It is hard because we cannot go into every teenager's iPhone or iPad and tell them what they should do or listen to. I think this is an extremely serious cultural problem: the loss of major television events and the fact that our cultural offerings often come under the heel of American imperialism. Our offerings are so fragmented and so broad that it makes us wonder how we are going to be able to legislate and regulate all this. Can we really have a francophone and Quebec culture that is going to be vibrant, attractive and seen, but also profitable? These artists and artisans need to be able to make a living from their work, after all.
I think that we need to do a lot of collaborative thinking. We started to do so awhile back with Bill C-11 on discoverability, on the idea of forcing these digital platforms to promote French-language content and make it visible. These international companies are highly resistant to any attempt to force them to put prompts on their home pages to ensure that these songs, movies and TV shows are accessible and profitable. We can no longer rely on the traditional over-the-air channels to present these works. They need to be on YouTube, Netflix and Spotify. They need to be discoverable. There needs to be a French or Quebec category. How can we ensure that these web giants accept the unique status of Quebeckers and francophone minorities outside Quebec in order to make that possible? We need to find the right restrictions or incentives to make that happen. I think that this bill is a good start when it comes to consulting the Government of Quebec, but we need to put our heads together to take this a lot further.
1508 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are here today to discuss a crucial issue, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act.
We have been discussing Bill C-354 for some time now. This bill is designed to establish an assurance mechanism to guarantee that the CRTC consults with the Quebec government before regulating aspects of the Canadian broadcasting network that relate to the province's cultural distinctiveness. This is crucial.
The bill also proposes to have the CRTC consult with the governments of other provinces on aspects related to francophone markets or the Canadian francophonie. This is important. It does not impose any binding obligations on the CRTC, but it does provide crucial assurance to the provinces that they will be involved in this decision-making process.
It is essential to understand the CRTC is not currently required to consult Quebec before making regulatory decisions that affect it. The bill responds to a legitimate concern about the decline of the French language and the threat of cultural assimilation. It establishes a proactive approach to ensure adequate representation of Quebec's interests, particularly with regard to its cultural distinctiveness, and of the French fact in the rest of Canada.
This approach is a legacy of the past. It goes back to 1929, when Quebec premier Alexandre Taschereau passed the province's broadcasting law. Unfortunately, instead of collaborating with Quebec, Ottawa came up with its own version, creating the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, the precursor to the CRTC and the current federal broadcasting legislation.
The idea of sovereignty over telecommunications is alive and well despite federal interference. It goes way back. Every government since Taschereau's has advocated for Quebec's independence in managing its telecommunications.
That is why it is so frustrating to run up against a refusal to listen and maybe even sheer ignorance. I interpret Ottawa's ongoing silence as the federal government's disdain for and indifference toward Quebec culture. Otherwise, we would not be here today.
Having said that, it is not through the courts that we will win our right to develop and maintain our culture. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on numerous occasions that telecommunications and broadcasting are the responsibility of the federal government. However, the delegation of this administrative power is based on the will of parliamentarians in the House of Commons. This type of agreement already exists. Earlier, my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île talked about agreements with the RCMP. I will not go through the whole list. Members are familiar with them. There are plenty of them in Quebec.
All it takes is a little willpower. I have become more confident over the years. I think we will be able to sign an administrative agreement in 2023-24 that will change the fate of Quebec culture. If it really wanted to, the federal government could amend the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act today to include such an administrative agreement. We have proof that this can be done, looking at the employment insurance pilot projects, which have been incorporated into the federal legislation bearing the same name. It is possible.
The Bloc Québécois firmly believes that telecommunications and broadcasting are vitally important to the vitality of Quebec's culture and language, which deserve to be preserved and, more importantly, to be showcased with pride. I hope that all parliamentarians share this belief.
Quebec's cultural industries, including film, music, literature and other art forms, contribute significantly to Canada's cultural diversity. That is why we think that these sectors should regulated by Quebec, ideally under a Quebec radio-television and telecommunications commission, a “QRTC”, which is the only way we would have total control over decisions that relate to our language and culture. However, until that becomes a possibility, Quebec should be consulted when it comes to its culture and how its communications are handled.
As I said at the start of my speech, this bill provides assurances, a formal guarantee that Quebec will be consulted during the CRTC's decision-making process. This consultation would not be a constraint imposed on the CRTC, but rather an inclusion mechanism. I hear parliamentarians say that we could take this further in committee, and I am happy about that. We could take this much, much further, but we have to start somewhere.
It is important to note that this measure does not seek to diminish the CRTC's authority. I have repeated that three times now. Canada is a diverse country with provinces and territories that have distinct cultural identities. As my colleague mentioned earlier, this diversity needs to be celebrated and reflected in regulatory decisions concerning aspects as crucial as broadcasting.
The bill provides the provinces with the necessary assurance that their voices will be heard during the CRTC's decision-making process. With respect to consulting governments of other provinces about aspects that concern francophone markets or the francophonie, this inclusion fully recognizes the francophonie outside Quebec. This provision highlights the importance of taking the perspectives of all provinces with sizable francophone populations into account.
It is important to note that Quebec is not alone in its attachment to the French language. Other provinces and territories, such as New Brunswick, Manitoba, Alberta, Yukon and Ontario, have vibrant, dynamic francophone communities. These communities make a significant contribution to Canada's cultural diversity and play an essential role in preserving and promoting the French language.
In closing, it is time to assert our right to develop our culture and ensure that broadcasting mechanisms come under our control. Creating an independent organization is not just a political issue; it is about preserving our identity, our language and our cultural heritage. It is time to take action and give Quebec the means to shape its cultural future as it sees fit.
975 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address Bill C-354, for a number of reasons. For me personally, as I indicated in a question to the Bloc a little earlier this evening, I want to recognize Quebec and how, as a community and a province, it has evolved to what it is today.
I have had many discussions throughout my political career, going back to the mid-1980s and then in 1988 when I was elected back in the Manitoba legislature, about Canada's diversity, and in particular how Quebec really does stand out in many ways. I have worked with many politicians from Quebec over the years, whether members of Parliament or others, and one gains an appreciation for their advocacy for arts and culture.
I do not believe other provinces do not have that same sort of strength of character and diversity, but what I have seen over the years is that it is held a little closer to the heart in Quebec, and I truly appreciate that. However, I also value the diversity of my home province of Manitoba, or even the Prairie regions.
The member made reference to the Quebec French factor, if I can put it that way. Although I cannot speak French or do not necessarily have the courage to say it out loud, and I might think of it in my mind at times, I am very proud of the community of St. Boniface in Winnipeg.
My great-great-grandfather, and there might even be a third great, is from St-Pierre-Jolys, and his family went to live just outside Montreal over 100 years ago. I really do appreciate and love the French factor, or the culture, that has evolved in Quebec and will do what I can to encourage it and promote it.
I like to think there is some uniqueness we all love. I was a big Montreal Habs fan, for example. Well, today it is the Winnipeg Jets, but when I was growing up we did not have the Jets. I do not want to betray my own city. I also like poutine. Maple syrup, and I believe poutine, originate out of Quebec. Poutine is a great dish, and maybe I have it a little too often at times.
The point is we have seen so many artists come out of Quebec, and a lot of the pride that stems out of provinces ultimately leads to superstars around the world. We should do what we can to support it, which is one of the reasons I have been very supportive of other government pieces of legislation.
Having said all of that, I am also a fairly strong advocate of the role the CRTC plays. Sometimes it frustrates me. Sometimes there are things happening in Manitoba in particular, where I maybe would have liked to see more competition of sorts, but more programming to deal with the diversity of our communities. At the end of the day, I recognize it already does an extensive amount of consultation. I know provinces will often intervene with the CRTC when there are decisions being made.
When I think of the CRTC into the future, I see its role ultimately expanding. If we compare 30 years ago to today, there is now the Internet and a whole area that is fairly new. I believe the CRTC plays an important role in many forms of communication nowadays. However, when it comes to our culture and heritage, and making sure that we do what we can to promote and preserve it, I would suggest that it is important that we make sure there is a consultation that continues on.
616 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 6:28:17 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member will have time to complete his speech when the bill next comes to the House.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 6:28:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Red Deer—Lacombe.
I think it is really important to have this debate at this particular juncture, given that Canada's ability to meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets and the heft and might of its climate strategy will come under scrutiny at the COP climate conference in the next week or so.
The report is kind of an indictment on the government's ability to undertake concrete action to implement policies, procedures and strategies that would materially reduce greenhouse gas emissions production within the government's own scope of operations. The recommendations contained herein, given the amount of public money that I am sure has been expended on the activities contained here, which were audited, should give every member of the House pause for thought and certainly some level of concern in terms of the government's ability to deliver results when it comes to climate change.
I want to use this opportunity to talk about two things. The first is the government's inability to meet Canada's climate targets, and what I think it should be doing at the junction and intersection with the activities of the government that are contained within this report. Also, I want to talk about how the government needs to look at its operations and structures on different initiatives that are purportedly designed to meet Canada's greenhouse gas emissions targets but that are not getting the job done.
A couple of weeks ago, ahead of a fairly significant vote in the House on removing the carbon tax on home heating for all Canadians, I wrote a piece entitled “Canada's carbon tax isn't working. It's time for it to go”. The subheading I used was “Monday’s vote on ‘axing the tax’ on home heating should be viewed as a critical opportunity to innovate.” The reason I put that subheading in there is that there were new reports that were showing that the government, in spite of having the carbon tax in place, was really not on its way to meeting Canada's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. At the same time, the economy, according to data we saw today, is shrinking. Canadians are having a really hard time making ends meet, and we are not meeting our targets. This should prompt the government into rethinking its approach.
The piece reads as follows:
Ahead of a Wednesday morning caucus meeting, and as winter temperatures begin to set in across the country, [the] federal Conservative Party leader...announced that his party would force a vote in the House of Commons...to extend a three-year carbon tax exemption that was announced by [the] Prime Minister...for Atlantic Canadian heating oil to all forms of home heating in every part of Canada.
The temptation for the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners will be to continue to toe the line [the Prime Minister] took...which was that no additional carve-outs on the carbon tax would be forthcoming, and vote against [this Conservative] motion.
This is what the Liberals and the NDP did. Actually, I am not sure, but the Liberals definitely voted against it. The article continues:
But that position is a mistake, both politically and morally. If the Liberals and NDP care about public support for climate policy, the inflation crisis, and their jobs, they should vote in favour of [this] motion.
Here's why.
While inflation and cost of living remain the top concerns of Canadians, a very recent survey by Leger suggested that about 70% of Canadians are worried about climate change. However, support for keeping [the Prime Minister]'s signature climate policy, the carbon tax, only registers with the support of 18% of Canadians. The reason for the vast delta between public concern for addressing climate change and support for the carbon tax is something that few Liberal intelligentsia have considered. That blind spot is now both politically biting them in the rear and is likely preventing Canada from meeting its emissions reduction targets.
And that reason is that the carbon tax is failing to move consumer preferences away from high-carbon products and practices in the way [the Prime Minister] promised that it would, and Canadians know it. And in the middle of a generationally high cost of living crisis, all Canadians—even those very concerned about climate change—are unwilling to pay for a policy they consider ineffectual.
Said differently, people will only choose alternatives to driving and heating their homes with carbon-based fuel if other options exist, are available, and are affordable. Those circumstances might be partially available in other, more temperate, highly populated regions of the globe, but not so across much of Canada. So even though [the Prime Minister] is increasing the price of carbon fuel with his tax, Canadians aren't choosing to purchase alternatives because in most parts of Canada, they don't yet widely exist, or are completely unaffordable.
Even within the government's own scope of operations, that principle is clearly shown within this report.
It continues:
This concept is simple to grasp for even the most politically disconnected Canadians, particularly when they fill up their car and pay a carbon tax but have no public transit alternatives or pay a carbon-based home heating bill for six months of brutal cold with no other option.
And a decade of Liberal rule has also shown that their government isn't particularly good at getting these alternatives built—
This is very much evidenced in this report.
—which has further added to the failure of the carbon tax to shift demand for carbon fuel. Few Canadians now believe the Liberals can do things like actually build out the infrastructure needed to pull gas-powered cars off the road, for the simple fact that they’ve failed to do so after nearly a decade in government.
That is again evidenced in this report.
This was two weeks ago, but it goes on:
And this week’s serious whistleblower allegations regarding wrongdoing at a federal government agency—
This of course was SDTC.
—that was supposed to spur the development and deployment of emissions reduction technologies will undoubtedly further erode public trust in the Liberal government's capacity to provide lower cost alternatives to carbon fuels.
These facts are laid bare in recent government reports that show that even with the tax, Canada will still probably miss its 2030 emissions targets by close to 50 percent.
We are not even in the universe of getting close to meeting those emissions targets.
It continues:
There's proof of these facts in recent political trends, too. [The Prime Minister's] capitulation on the tax on heating oil should have been viewed as an inevitability by even the most lay observer—the signs have been present for months. For example, in August, a Nova Scotia provincial riding that has been a safe Liberal hold for time immemorial was flipped by provincial conservatives due mainly to the unpopularity of the federal Liberal carbon tax. Within [the Prime Minister's] federal caucus, there has also been [a lot of] dissent over the issue, likely due to the sustained, precipitous dip in polls in the traditionally safe-for-the-Liberals electoral territory that is Atlantic Canada.
These incidents followed nearly a year of high-profile messaging by my party, the Conservative Party, on these points, with “a message that was easy to grasp for millions of Canadians already grappling with increased living costs in the inflationary crisis.” It continues, “Now, that same crisis has overlaid onto the tax and means millions of Canadians face the prospect of choosing between heating and eating, never mind considering investing in expensive or”, as is the case is in most parts of Canada, “non-existent alternatives to carbon fuels.”
Again, I draw members' attention to the finance minister's very tone-deaf comments in Atlantic Canada earlier this year when she talked about how easy it was for her to get around in her downtown riding after being asked about the impacts of the carbon tax on Prince Edward Island's car-based tourism economy.
The report continues:
Further, [the Prime Minister's] late-stage, partial capitulation on removing the tax only for heating oil but not for other carbon fuel also risks creating perverse incentives like the one mentioned by the Rural Municipalities of Alberta, Bruce McLauchlin, who suggested that [the Prime Minister's] partial tax exemption may generate demand for higher emitting heating oil in certain circumstances. Keeping the tax with regional inequities also will further divide the country at a time when the federal government should be working towards unifying policy.
This report really shows that the government makes a lot of promises when it comes to climate and has not delivered. Canadians are poorer and our greenhouse gas emissions have risen. I really hope the government takes the recommendations in this report writ large, looks at them, goes back to the drawing board and develops policy that does not harm Canadians and lowers our emissions.
1543 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 6:39:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have been very clear in terms of the price on pollution.
Could the member give a clear indication of whether she envisions a world in which the Conservative Party of Canada would ever actually support a price on pollution?
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 6:39:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for a carbon tax to reduce consumer reliance or get consumers to switch from a high-carbon consumer product or practice such as, let us say, filling up a gas-powered car, there has to be affordable substitute goods for them to purchase.
If the member opposite came to my riding in Calgary, he would see that the federal government has failed to build out light rail transit, for example. Light rail transit could conceivably pull 50,000 cars off the road every day, but that does not exist because the government has not been able to build these things out.
What happens is that, no matter how high the price of gas is or how much tax there is, my constituents still have to fill up their cars. Therefore, the carbon tax does not work.
It is price inelastic because there are no substitute goods. That dogmatic adherence to a pricing instrument that does not work is bad public policy and the government should abandon it.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, with amendments, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 6:40:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to speak to the concurrence motion on a public accounts committee report, which concerns the greening of government buildings. I find myself concerned that the government is not really interested in the greening of our buildings, but in the greening of pockets, specifically the pockets of Liberal insiders and their appointees.
I am, of course, referring to the latest Liberal scandal, one that culminated with the head of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC, Leah Lawrence, resigning. The abrupt end to her tenure came amid severe allegations of mismanagement and corruption, directed not only at her, but also at her executive.
These allegations were brought forth by whistle-blowers who reached out to both the government and the Privy Council Office. These complaints resulted in an inquiry into the matter conducted by Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton, which I will refer to as RCGT.
It confirmed that the whistle-blower complaints were grounded in fact, finding several instances of corruption. The most damning of these allegations came in the form of unethical contributions to companies owned by the executive of the SDTC board. The RCGT report states that these contributions did not appear to be consistent with the requirements of SDTC's contribution agreements with the government and that the payments do not require project cost eligibility or monitoring and reporting. In other words, it did not meet any basic requirements that any responsible government would put in place on the oversight of taxpayer dollars.
To compound the issue, the government somehow ignored these findings and continued to fund this organization after it knew what was going on. This scandal is sordid and complex, so please buckle up and bear with me as I lay out some of the facts in what could be called the anatomy of a scandal.
What is the SDTC? It is a federally funded non-profit founded in 2001 that approves and disburses millions in funds annually to clean tech companies. Its latest mandate was to disburse a billion dollars over five years, ending in the 2025-26 fiscal year.
In 2015, the head villain of the story, Leah Lawrence, was hired to be the CEO of SDTC. This is the foundational piece. Under her leadership, the institution soon started to decline. It essentially turned into a green slush fund for her and her friends. A key player in covering up her behaviour, seemingly her partner in this, is Annette Verschuren, who was appointed chair of the board through the government's order in council in 2019.
Annette then used her position as the chair to protect Leah, the chief executive officer, and they teamed up to create new funding streams, which were ineligible by the very nature of the provisions of the creation of SDTC. They did this to supposedly help SDTC meet its funding targets. What happens when these funding targets are hit? It triggers bonuses for the executives and the members of the board. These bonuses were then used by board members to fund their own businesses interests. The entire board then also partook in the scam.
Furthermore, subcontractors on the projects were often affiliated with the chief executive officer. The problem was so bad that Annette Verschuren had her own companies funded to a staggering rate of $220,000. Clearly in the wrong, the board tried to cover its tracks by contracting an outside legal opinion that said it was okay to fund their own companies with the bonus money. However, there was a major flaw with that opinion because it came from Ed Vandenberg, who happens to be a paid SDTC member, which is just another conflict of interest in a long line of many.
Once again, we know all of this because of the whistle-blowers who came forward. One of them had secretly recorded conversations with Doug McConnachie, the assistant deputy minister at Innovation, Science and Economic Development, who is also a man who had a lot of interesting things to say about the fund and its sickening levels of graft. He said, “There's a lot of sloppiness and laziness. There is some outright incompetence and, you know, the situation is just kind of untenable at this point”.
He also referred to the original investigation by the board as a whitewash and said that the RCGT report implicated the board in terrible ways, like by not following process, by not following the conflict of interest regime and by not being prudent fiduciaries. He said that they have missed out on so many and that it is just the board failure altogether. He also said that, in that case, they were briefing it and that was how it was well understood by them and the deputies. He thought is was understood by PCO as well because, according to him, it was not the first time they have seen this kind of situation, so they knew that they had to get people out of there.
What does that imply? It implies that the minister knew, and it implies that the Prime Minister knew. Even more damning, Mr. McConnachie was quoted saying the scandal “is almost a sponsorship scandal-level kind of giveaway.”
Despite Doug McConnachie's disgust, and the hopes of his fellow whistle-blowers for action from the government, the SDTC management team and board of directors remained in place months later. This clear lack of action demonstrates a strange passivity within the government in the face of substantiated allegations of corruption.
On the question of what kind of workplace environment this corruption and ineptitude has caused, almost half of the fifty-person staff is on its way out. Four of them are on sick leave, and 20 are in the process of resigning or quitting. This is unacceptable and kills morale among the hard-working, honest people in our departments. This fact was acknowledged by Doug McConnachie who stated that the workplace was now toxic. The problem was even worse in 2018, where the rate of turnover could be factored at over 75%. During Leah Lawrence's tenure, whistle-blowers made allegations that loyalties were constantly being tested by petty executives who pressured subordinates to write fake reviews online to inflate workplace review scores. What should be expected of a group of executives who were that corrupt? They could not even take responsibility for their actions.
In a statement responding to the RCGT report, the SDTC executive and board said, “the report found no clear evidence of wrongdoing or misconduct at SDTC and indicated that no further investigation is merited.” This out-of-touch statement is not only ludicrous, but also a disconnect from reality.
Recently, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada has announced that it will be investigating this scandal. This is a welcome announcement, but we need to ensure accountability in the long term. This type of graft over the last eight years has been noticed internationally, with our standing on Transparency International's corruption perceptions index falling precipitously over the last few years. In fact, our descent down the rankings is among the fastest in the world. Canada's whistle-blower protections have been criticized, and our access to information legislation is out of date. It is time that we move on. There is a long list of scandals that I could talk about for hours.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “That” and substituting the following:
“the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented on Tuesday, February 14, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the committee with the instruction that:
(a) It take note of the resignation of the CEO and Chair of Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) over allegations that funds were used improperly, namely that SDTC has been accused of giving grants to start-ups and accelerators with ties to their senior management, as well as making payments inconsistent with the requirements of their agreement with the government; and
(b) In keeping with the Auditor General's observation at Treasury Board, which is responsible for the supervision of SDTC, has not provided oversight, as well as SDTC's mission statement claiming it is ‘committed to full transparency’, the committee add to its recommendations an invitation to Annette Verschuren former CEO and Chair of Sustainable Development Technology Canada and the whistleblowers who exposed this scandal to appear before the committee.”
1423 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 6:51:43 p.m.
- Watch
The amendment is in order.
There being no further members rising for debate, pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and recorded divisions are deemed requested.
Pursuant to Standing Order 66, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Wednesday, December 6, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 6:53:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in my November 1 question to the government, I pointed out that 24 Liberal MPs supposedly represent ridings in the city of Toronto. However, we would never know it from their deafening silence on issues of extreme importance to the city.
The Minister of Rural Economic Development said the quiet part out loud when she said other parts of the country should elect more Liberals if they want a carbon tax deferral, like Atlantic Canadians had received. Toronto has 24 Liberal MPs and they have been unwilling or unable to stand up for the city and get people, including refugees who have been forced to sleep on the city's streets, the help that they need.
The missing 24 MPs were missing in action when it came to the government honouring its promise to help Toronto with its COVID-created budget shortfall. This winter, Torontonians will be struggling to heat, and hopefully keep, their homes. Others are unable to find housing due to inflation and high interest rates. They would all like to receive a carbon tax deferral, too. However, their Liberal MPs did not show up to defend the people's interest and get a tax holiday. The two Liberal MPs from Alberta can hold their regional caucus in a phone booth, so they can be forgiven for not being very effective in getting the government to do anything, much less in bringing about a carbon tax holiday.
However, in my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, I asked if he could explain how his “Toronto 24” colleagues disappeared from their responsibilities to represent the city's interests. It is, indeed, odd that two dozen MPs vanished and their faces never even made milk cartons.
In attempting to answer my question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing waxed poetically from speaking notes that did not address my question's salient points: one, helping Toronto with its housing issues and, two, living up to the federal promise to assist the city with its COVID-created budget shortfall. Indeed, the parliamentary secretary indicated that I had failed to mention the Toronto MPs who allegedly pushed the government to invest money in the city. It is hard to mention things that no one has seen. Perhaps they are not missing. Maybe they are just shy and, in an astounding world first for politicians, they just do not want to tell anyone about their hard work and success.
National failures have local consequences and because of the Liberal government's failure, Deb, who I spoke to earlier today, and other constituents living by Clarence Park are being overwhelmed by a tent encampment. They do not feel safe walking through the park. A neighbour was assaulted this week while walking her dog.
Others in Fort York saw a fire break out at an encampment two days ago and there is a new facility at 75 Elizabeth Street forced on local residents directly across the street from a day care and a children's playground. Unfortunately, we also cannot forget the low-barrier respite, now a shelter, being forced on Niagara and King West residents at 629 Adelaide Street West.
Therefore, I am forced yet again to stand up for not only my constituents but all Torontonians who are being failed by their 24 Liberal MPs. Since local Liberal MPs cannot or will not do it, I am here to ask: Will the federal government help Toronto with its housing issues and, in the process, finally honour its 2021 election promise to assist the city with its COVID budget shortfall, yes or no?
605 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/23 6:57:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's concern for Torontonians, and I agree that we need to be there for our constituents. However, I strongly disagree with the allegation and assertion that the 24 Liberal members of Parliament who reside in Toronto are ineffective.
They are extremely effective. They have great relationships with Toronto's mayor, Olivia Chow, and the previous mayor, John Tory. Those relationships are strong and deep. Toronto council members regularly contact their members of Parliament, and we have consistently been there for the city of Toronto, whether on housing, on addictions, on crime or on any issue at all.
I would remind the member of Parliament for Spadina—Fort York that he was elected because of our strong relationship with the city of Toronto and our strong reputation as a party that represents Toronto very well. I would repeat that if his name had not been on Liberal signs, he would not have been elected in the city of Toronto.
The government shares the firm belief that everybody in this country, regardless of income, deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. We understand that the challenges we are facing are complex and multi-faceted. Homelessness is one of the most complex and difficult problems to solve, and these things have been in the works for years. There are no single solutions. There are no quick switches that any government can flip to solve the challenges represented by homelessness. It is also a nationwide issue that can only be solved with close co-operation between partners in every sector, just like the close relationship that our government has with the city of Toronto.
The city of Toronto is on the front lines of the housing crisis, and we are not just eager to work with those in Toronto; we have been working with them. The Government of Canada has been making historic investments to tackle chronic homelessness, and we are working closely with communities and service providers to deliver on those commitments. It is hard work that will not happen overnight, and it has certainly been challenging, but if we work together, set aside differences and leverage our strengths, we can make a real difference, as we have been.
What the government has done recently is nearly doubled the funding for Reaching Home. That is Canada's homelessness strategy, which is at almost $4 billion now. This initiative is specifically designed to help prevent and reduce chronic homelessness. Reaching Home is a crucial part of this government's historic national housing strategy, one that understands the values of local community organizations, which are best placed to understand their communities' unique challenges. Reaching Home gives them funding to support that vital work. I am proud to share with this House that since we launched that program in April 2019, it has already improved outcomes for the more than 121,000 people who have received homelessness prevention support through its projects, and for the nearly 70,000 people it has helped to find stable and consistent long-term housing.
Reaching Home is working. It is creating real, positive results right across Canada, and as we speak, Toronto is no exception. From 2019 to 2024, we have invested more than $252 million through Reaching Home to tackle homelessness in Toronto. That includes $45.5 million over the last two years, starting in 2022, to keep up the funding boost we provided throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, as my colleague mentioned. Of course, we are also making historic efforts to boost Canada's housing supply in order to create more options for stable, affordable housing in the long term.
Our government will always be there for the city of Toronto. Members of Parliament are extremely engaged in their communities, and I will not stand here and listen to anything to the contrary.
644 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
