Mr. Chairman, if we are to believe that, then I have a good sale on some snow I saved from shovelling my sidewalk last year. Mr. Arthur isn't alone in battling the CRTC. I locked horns with this commission ten years ago. However, I accept the fact that the comments we have heard today could not have been made if seven members sitting on that side had not agreed to devote an entire day to this issue, to see if there were any problems. We discovered that the problems were more serious than we thought they were.
Let me put things in perspective, Mr. Chair, with respect to the comments by Mr. Carrie and Mr. Arthur, because I tend to believe that what they're saying amounts to saying the minister is absolutely right and that whatever the minister says is obviously the way we should approach this.
Not quite so fast. There's the possibility here of an illegal action by the minister for using his order in council powers to subvert parts of the Telecommunications Act. He ran contrary to the CRTC's unanimous decision.
You may choose to suggest that the CRTC counts for very little, but this also disrespects the very report on which the minister based some of these recommendations.
Mr. Chair, it's very clear that the minister has done nothing less than cherry-pick what he wanted to have in this.
Mr. Carrie suggested that the question is, who made the call here? I think that's a question he may want to ask his minister.
I want to make sure that we have a proper debate on this, as opposed to engaging in some kind of innuendo and intrigue.
Mr. Carrie also knows that telecommunications is an evolving area with which this industry committee must come to grips. This was evidenced by the great pride and privilege he took in having the manufacturing committee come to his own riding, which as a committee we agreed to since this was the most pressing issue.
We have a number of inconsistencies, and I'll point out another one. Mr. Carrie, the whole question of the interconnection of quality service requirements, which was recommended by the telecommunications panel, was ignored as well. We have examples of win-back rules and questions and concerns that were raised by the Competition Bureau. But complications arose regarding jurisdiction between the CRTC and the Competition Bureau, in terms of creating this new hybrid marketing agency.
I want to go specifically to the point that I think is important for this committee to recommend. You've had less than two hours to review this issue. You can decide what is right and what is wrong.
What remains in focus is that notwithstanding a committee resolution to give a few more weeks—up to March 1—your minister decided to proceed. In his haste, he may have omitted the CRTC and avoided several recommendations of the blue-ribbon panel. But he will not avoid this committee and its ability to properly scrutinize, on behalf of consumers, the regulations with which he's proceeded.
It is our view that if left unchallenged this will be a step backwards for consumers. It will benefit only a few, and we'll obviously see the monopolization of the entire telecommunications spectrum, leaving rural Canadians out in the cold.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised to hear some of my Conservative colleagues dismiss the significance this is going to have for rural Canadians.
So, Mr. Chair, with your advice and consent, I am prepared to support Mr. Crête's motion. Let's get on with it. We can decide for ourselves what's in and what's not.
One thing is very clear: we have an obligation to present a proper, thorough, and meaningful review of what the minister has proposed. If we don't do this, we fail Canadians.