Madam Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-57, an act to amend the Bell Canada Act.
This bill seeks to allow Bell Canada to hold a broadcasting licence or to operate a broadcasting undertaking which, until now, the company was prohibited from doing.
This legislation is part of the regulatory changes undertaken by the government to allow competition among the various players in the communications sector. Telephone companies will now be allowed to operate in the broadcasting and cable broadcasting sectors, while cable companies will be able to use their networks to sell telephone services and to provide access to the information highway.
We agree with the objective to promote competition and convergence, and we support the bill. However, this legislation only solves Bell Canada's case. The government must still grant the same privilege to other companies providing telephone services, including Quebec Telephone and BC Tel.
Let us not forget that, with the support and the co-operation of the public, the Bloc Quebecois worked very hard to show to the government the major role played by Quebec Telephone in eastern Quebec's economy.
The Bloc Quebecois asked that Quebec Telephone also be allowed to provide broadcasting services. The government recognized the soundness of the official opposition's arguments and, on August 6, when it launched its policy, it also announced that Quebec Telephone and BC Tel would be allowed to access the new convergence market, and that an order in council would be made to this effect.
We are concerned that this bill was tabled without any order being made regarding Quebec Telephone and BC Tel. Madam Speaker, I ask you to remind the government that it would be greatly appreciated if the order was made before the final vote on this bill, so as to give equal treatment to all telephone companies.
We cannot talk about a bill on Bell Canada without mentioning the recent telephone rate increases approved by the federal government. The new competitive environment was supposed to result in a lowering of the rates, including for long distance services. In fact, prices went down only for major users and companies.
As for Bell Canada's clients, they will have to put up with two successive increases of two dollars, in 1996 and in 1997, and with an undetermined one in 1998. The government overturned CRTC decisions that would have give residence customers and small and medium size businesses a rebate on long distance calls.
In the end, the government's attitude towards the industry means that it would be up to the consumers instead of investors and phone company shareholders to pay for the development of communications networks and for their adaptation to the information highway.
For the industry, getting assistance from the government means that the companies do not have to take any risk or invest any money. They make the consumers pay for their investments, make huge profits which are, for the most part, tax deductible, not to mention the deduction they might get for their contribution to the party.
Several companies are not at all interested in developing networks in rural areas, because it is less profitable than developing networks in urban areas. Ever since the government has introduced competition at the local service level, it has become obvious that regions will be adversely affected.
Putting an end to cross subsidization between the rural areas and the cities will be devastating, since it will result in an increase in rates and reduced access to services.
First, the rates will go up, as of July 1997, businesses in rural areas will pay $5 to $10 more than businesses in urban areas.
Also, residence customers will face an 87 per cent increase over a period of a little more than two years, if you add to the rate increases the cost of modernizing telephone exchanges.
These increases are occurring as the chairman of Bell Canada announces that his company expects its net income to grow by 40 per cent and to generate $712 million in profits.
Even if it talks about accessibility, the government has not promised to set up any kind of system to provide universal access to telecommunications, as was proposed by the Fédération nationale des associations de consommateurs du Québec, and has not found it necessary to ask the CRTC to examine this issue.
Therefore, in the communications area, there is a huge risk to see the gap widen between the urban areas and the regions, between the people who have easy access to and those who are starved of information.
This gap will only emphasize the cultural isolation of the regions, deny the local economies the tools they need to make up for their geographical isolation and to fully take part in the market globalization.
The fact that the opposition supports the federal initiative set out in this bill in no way means that we agree with all the government policies concerning the communications industry, far from it.
While the government has thoroughly addressed issues such as competition, deregulation and markets with regard to the information highway, it seems to have neglected to look at what will be offered to the public.
These technological innovations open the door to promising changes. However, society must take the time to adapt to these changes and to find the best way to benefit from them.
These new communication technologies have been dubbed "information highway" because, just like highways, they allow people to communicate more rapidly. But even if one likes to drive, highways are only useful if they lead to interesting places.
An information highway without any interesting content, whether educational, artistic, scientific or other, would be as useless and boring as a highway that would stretch over hundreds of kilometers without any exit, without beautiful scenery, and that would bring us right back to our starting point.
Yet, this is exactly what the government is doing. It wants to give our country an information highway but has no plan to develop meaningful Canadian products in both official languages.
I am talking about products developed here by our own creators, that would reflect the culture and the interests of our society and that would be accessible to the public. These products would also represent us in the global forum which the information highway is becoming more and more everyday.
Of course, the minister is even less concerned with the importance of developing French language products that would allow Quebecers, Acadians and other French-speaking communities in Canada to benefit fully from the opportunities offered by these new communication technologies.
The government is talking about recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, but its actions do not match its words. In this case, it should ensure a French content in all communications-related areas.
The industry minister is so obsessed with the economic aspect, the competition issue and building infrastructures that he is even forgetting the price-quality ratio and seems to be stuck on the word price.
Forgetting the word quality is forgetting the millions of taxpayers and consumers who pay high taxes and high telephone and cable bills and who want to have more for their money.
Recently, the government has shown again its lack of commitment to protect Canada's and Quebec's cultures when it authorized two American audio programming service companies, Power DirecTv and DMX, to broadcast in Canada without having to comply with CTRC rules on minimum Canadian and French language content.
Of course, the minister wanted to reassure Canadians and, in all the information she gave, she forgot to mention that DMX will broadcast 17 American channels that are not authorized by the CRTC.
These American services will be competing with the services of Canadian companies, which do meet CRTC requirements and which invest here in the production of Canadian content, which employ our own technicians, artists and creators.
Canada negotiated a "cultural exemption" clause in NAFTA so that it could protect Canadian cultural industries. The Liberal government has given up enforcing this clause, and, bit by bit, is opening the door ever wider to Americans. The Liberal Party's job creation promises will thus come true, but largely in the United States, as far as culture is concerned.
Another case where the government has opened the door to American products is that of satellite television. The government was unable to help set up a Canadian direct to home satellite broadcasting service.
Some 400,000 Canadians, 80,000 of them in Quebec, living largely in rural areas without access to cable services, subscribed to satellite services originating in the United States. This represents millions of dollars lost to Canadian industry.
There will be important changes in the near future in satellite television technology. Consumers who spent a lot of money on satellite dishes may well find themselves with equipment that is no longer compatible with the new technology.
The government is refusing to conduct advertising campaigns to inform the public about these changes. It is refusing to protect the public by requiring that dishes be leased until equipment adapted to the new technologies is available, in order to save consumers the expense of these changes.
By thus allowing retailers to continue to sell satellite dishes that will soon be useless because they are based on old technology, the federal government is completely neglecting its responsibility to protect consumers. Yet, section 5 of the Act to establish the Department of Industry, which requires the minister to promote science and technology in Canada, also stipulates, and I quote: "-the minister shall exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions-in a manner that will promote the interests and protection of Canadian consumers".
There is still time for the minister to redeem himself. First of all, people who have purchased satellite dishes since January 1, 1995 ought to be compensated when they are required to make changes to accommodate the new technology.
This would affect close to 400,000 Canadians, 80,000 of them Quebecers, who have been the ones taken for a ride. It has been known since 1994 that dish technology is going to become obsolete, now that CBC and all stations have gone digital. That was known when the dishes were sold.
They are still being sold in Canada, and purchasers are not even being warned by a government label or some other means stating "these antennas are purchased at your own risk. This is an outmoded technology, so you cannot come after us claiming compensation later on." The government has a responsibility concerning these companies, which are selling obsolete technology without any scruples.
Second, the minister ought to warn consumers not to invest in outdated technology. The government ought to carry out a serious information campaign, even going so far as to ban sales of this satellite technology during the transition period, and to allow only short-term leasing, so as to protect the public against unscrupulous vendors.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois has demanded, still demands, and will continue to demand unrelentingly that the government take consumer interests and regional interests into greater consideration, where price and quality as well as content and services are concerned.
We will be closely monitoring how much expression the government will allow francophones, how much funding it will give them to permit full, quality expression in French. We will continue to criticize the federal government's lack of vision with respect to culture and consumer goods.
Since the Bloc Quebecois was elected to the House of Commons, we have seen time and time again how the government has no compunction about selling off Canadian culture, bit by bit. Not a day goes by in this House without a government member rising to say we want to destroy Canada, but I accuse the Liberal government of wanting to destroy this country by selling Canadian culture off bit by bit, day after day, month after month. And that is the truth.
When the day comes when a country has no more culture, when Canadian culture has become American, do not ask Quebec to save you again. You took from us the name of our country and our national anthem, but we will make ourselves a country where we have our own culture, where we can develop our potential. Meanwhile, we will support this bill, provided the case of Québec Téléphone and B.C. Tel is settled before we are asked to vote on third reading. Enough is enough.
We are now backing down from promises made to B.C. Tel and Québec Téléphone. You can be sure we will vote against this bill if B.C. Tel and Québec Téléphone do not get a fair deal from this government.