Bill C-41 (Historical)

Maxime Bernier Beauce, QC

You're right. In terms of the legislative agenda, our schedule is quite full. As you know, we are currently debating bills relating to the justice system in the House. If I understood you correctly, when the Government House Leader meets with your Parliamentary Leader to put second reading of Bill C-41 on the agenda, you will not object.

Paul Crête Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Recommendation 3-3 could apply. The sunset clause would mean that it wouldn't be for ever. As far as Bill C-41 is concerned, all the government has to do is table it. Until it does that, we can't study it in the House. It's the government that hasn't tabled it yet.

Maxime Bernier Beauce, QC

Thank you for your question. As regards a comparison between the ridings of Beauce and Portneuf, you are right that we represent people who are entrepreneurs, people who believe in their success and in themselves. I am very proud to represent the Beauce region, and I am certain that you are just as proud to represent your riding. People from the Beauce may not benefit from the deregulation of telephone services quite as quickly as we would have liked, but I do hope that one day, they will derive the same benefits as people living in the major urban centres across the country.

I have confidence in the Competition Bureau; I believe the Commissioner is doing a fantastic job. She told the Committee that when there are serious problems, they address them and allocate the necessary resources to carry out studies as quickly as possible and issue injunctions, when necessary.

The Competition Bureau has all the resources it needs to be in a position to take action and sanction anti-competitive behaviour or an industry player that abuses its dominant position. It has all the necessary resources to do that. But we would like to provide it with an additional tool to counter this kind of behaviour. That's why I'm asking the Committee to look at Bill C-41, a bill that is in the interests of consumers, since it will ultimately give the Competition Bureau more teeth, by enabling it to impose administrative monetary penalties of as much as $15 million and issue injunctions after conducting a comprehensive, but expeditious, study of a given situation.

The Competition Bureau has a role to play. It is an independent government organization, as you know. I believe the new power related to administrative monetary penalties that would be given to the Competition Bureau once Bill C-41 has been passed into law, is in the interests of consumers and Canadians as a whole. I am confident that the Bureau will act expeditiously if this bill is passed and if a situation arises in the market place which shows that a company is not abiding by the rules laid out in the Competition Act.

Thank you for your interest in Bill C-41 and I hope that this bill can receive appropriate consideration at second and third readings as soon as possible.

Maxime Bernier Beauce, QC

As I mentioned earlier, the Competition Bureau has an important role to play. It must ensure that we have dynamic and competitive industries all across Canada. The Competition Bureau will fulfill its role in the telecommunications industry just as it did, with great success, in the transportation industry when it was deregulated. The Competition Bureau played an important role. At the time, the government had given it the power to impose monetary penalties on any players that did not comply with the Competition Act, that engaged in anti-competitive behaviour or abused their dominant position.

It is our hope that the Competition Bureau will have the same powers in the telecommunications industry. That is why we have tabled Bill C-41, which takes its inspiration from a bill tabled by the previous government that confers the same powers on the Competition Bureau. So, it is our hope that this legislation can be passed as quickly as possible, in order to afford greater protection to consumers in deregulated industries.

Dan McTeague Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

He is answering. And there's a question that comes with that.

Minister, you know full well that with respect to Bill C-41, as you've proposed it--and we've heard why you've wanted to introduce this bill--there's great concern that the damage is after the fact. So if someone is put out of business as a result, it'll take several months before somebody actually gets some kind of resolution. By that point, the business is gone, it's history, it's toast. And it'll take several months before someone is able to actually get back into business, if indeed they can at all.

This is a recipe for disaster, Minister. How do you explain that?

Dan McTeague Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Sir, on the subject of Bill C-41--

Maxime Bernier Beauce, QC

Thank you for asking that question about Bill C-41. It gives me an opportunity to say that this is an important bill that will allow us to ensure that these industries can be part of the free play of market forces in areas or centres which have been deregulated, while still complying with the Competition Act. By giving the Competition Tribunal the authority to impose monetary penalties, the government is promoting voluntary compliance with the Competition Act and, at the same time, protecting the consumer from anti-competitive behaviour that could be harmful. It is important to see Bill C-41 in its full context. The telecommunications market is evolving very rapidly, and there is a need for modern, flexible and effective regulations that allow consumers to benefit…

Dan McTeague Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Chair, thank you.

Minister, I want to come back to the earlier questions that I didn't get an answer to. In the meantime, you've raised a number of very interesting points, particularly with respect to wireless win-back, Bill C-41, and airlines.

Minister, when you last appeared before this committee on June 6, 2006, you stated categorically to my question that you didn't see any need to change the Competition Act. I'm glad to see you now see that, although I suggest the reason you're doing it has a lot to do with piggybacking on the issue of creating separate laws for the airline industry. As you know, competition law is the law of general application and general rule. I'm sure there are a number of competition lawyers and consumers out there who would probably want to argue that, as they did with me over the years.

Minister, you've talked a bit about the issue of win-backs, and I understand win-backs to work only on the following circumstances: if you leave the service, you will then get rewarded. So I hardly see how it's possible for you to connect wide consumer benefits with only a few people, who decide to leave, being paid handsome amounts to come back.

There's the experience in the United States, Minister, which I raised with you in December after you made your policy announcement just before the House rose. I talked about the experience of decline in competition in the United States. In fact, not only were they concerned about the decline, but to the same mantra that wireless and VoIP would be effective substitutes, we know that those technologies are a long way off. In fact, if they are precluded under your plan, they may never be realized.

So let me ask you this, Minister. An area that my colleague Mr. Carrie talked about in Durham region with Oshawa was with respect to what consumers are concerned about. They're very concerned about wireless. I want to know where you are with respect to this review, especially given that you have now three players. I note that under your criteria for having competition there has to be one of the wireless players who is not affiliated with the others. It's going to be pretty hard to deal with only three companies, which usually constitute either a telephone or a cable company. But this, Minister, probably has a lot to do with the fact that you didn't go through all the recommendations and follow the expert panel review.

Where are you with wireless? And when are you going to respond to a true need of consumers, as opposed to one that you seem to be inventing here now?

Maxime Bernier Beauce, QC

I do not share your views with respect to the comprehensiveness of this reform.

We have taken concrete action. There is competition in certain markets, and it is now time to deregulate those markets. The CRTC itself, using its market share test, admitted last fall that it wanted to review that test because it has realized that based on new data, there is very strong competition in certain urban centres. By using a test based on competitive infrastructure, we will ensure that where there is competition, there will also be deregulation that benefits consumers.

It is important to say that we are currently studying all of the panel's other recommendations and that, following that review, we will act on the other recommendations at the appropriate time.

I agree with you: many of the panel's other recommendations are of interest. We are in the process of reviewing them. So far, we have issued one policy direction to the CRTC — it was one of the recommendations deemed by the panel to be a priority. We brought that forward. We also tabled Bill C-41, an Act to amend the Competition Act, which will provide for consumer protection.

Our vision is a comprehensive one, because if telecommunications carriers or former monopolies adopt behaviour that is not in keeping with the Competition Act, as you know, financial penalties can be imposed. The Competition Bureau and the Competition Tribunal will have the power to impose fines of up to $15 million. We believe this will act as a deterrent and result in competition which is as harmonious as possible in deregulated areas. That is a power that the Bureau already had when we deregulated the airline industry, and it is a power that the Competition Bureau was asking for.

So, we are acting on several different fronts. We are taking action through the policy direction given to the CRTC, on the forbearance decision, and we are also acting to protect consumers.