Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his intent, although I must say this threw me off a bit.
I was saying that the first actions taken by consumers in the early 1900s were against trusts, against this kind of collusion between large corporations. It is not that they are bad; they are part of the market and are striving to be the strongest possible. When the market in question is a public services market and one as important as the telecommunications market, the government must maintain if not increase its power to ensure—and I quote a portion of section 7 of the Canadian Telecommunications Act and I reiterate that I would very much like it to be Quebec telecommunications—that this Telecommunications Act is essential to protect the sovereignty of Canada.
We ought therefore to be extremely vigilant. The remarks I have heard about reviewing the role of the CRTC are cause for concern. Of course, there are aspects of the commission that may seem irksome. One may not agree with its direction, but the fact remains that it plays a crucial role.
In spite of the concerns I will outline, the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-17. While we support this bill, it must be pointed out that full liberalization of international telecommunications will represent a major challenge, for Teleglobe in particular. Let me tell you that this is an area where employees fear for their jobs. The government may have guaranteed that the head office would remain in Montreal and guaranteed the pension fund, but employees fear for their jobs.
I can say that, for the longest time, Teleglobe, which is considered a flagship of the telecommunications industry in Canada, was a publicly owned corporation, a public service fully owned by the government. As such, it made several major discoveries. Its engineering team was renowned. Naturally, privatization opened new doors, but it should be pointed out that it was a flagship telecommunications corporation and that it become one when it was a crown corporation.
Our concerns have to do with the proposed amendments to the Telecommunications Act, and the lot of consumers in particular. With this bill, the government does more than give Teleglobe its freedom, so to speak, or put an end to a monopoly. It is a freedom not without risk, but it is the choice of the company and of the government. It is a choice that was difficult not to make, given the international context and the negotiations at the World Trade Organization.
But, in the original draft, the government also seized the opportunity to review the powers granted to the CRTC and give it the additional power to issue licences, according to various classes, to all telecommunications service providers. However, somewhere along the line, at committee stage, the government withdrew the power it wanted to give the CRTC. It did so because major national telecommunications companies, such as Bell and AT&T, came and expressed concern that we were trying to do too much. They said that the CRTC already had all the necessary powers, that it was not good to pile layer upon layer of regulations, and that things were fine the way they were. I also heard the CRTC representative say that even if the CRTC had the power to require licences in respect of each class, it did not mean that such power would be used from the very beginning.
It seemed to us to make real sense to have the CRTC hold this power, should relations between national telecommunications businesses, telephone companies and consumers deteriorate. Also, it might be felt that the problems were too enormous, and that the resellers who, until now, were not subject to the regulations, were assuming a major role. So, it was a good idea to have the CRTC retain the power to require licenses from companies interested in providing local and long distance telephone services.
The good thing with licenses is that consumers know exactly what to expect. Currently, the situation is very confusing for consumers. Telephone services have become essential services. Since people have not given up their telephone services in spite of the rate increases, it can be said that such services are now truly essential. A person living on their own, aged 70 or 80—or 56—and whose family is not nearby, even if they are not ill, but all the more so if they are, views a telephone with its 9-1-1 and 4-1-1 numbers as absolutely essential.
What we have observed, and what consumers have told us—and this was the Consumers' Association of Canada and the Association des consommateurs du Québec—was that they first became aware of the termination of monopolies, of so-called liberalization and the benefits of competition, when they were charged higher rates for basic residential services, which had tended to drop. That, then, is a real concern.
In Bill C-17, the government has a provision, which we support and on which we commend it as well, which is the clause allowing the creation of a fund to which all providers must contribute and which will make it possible to ensure basic telephone services.
But there is a snag, a big one that I have tried to remedy, which is that basic telephone service is not defined in Bill C-17 or in the Telecommunications Act, and this poses a problem.
Just as, under the circumstances, I want Teleglobe to be happy with the conditions imposed on it for competing in the international market and going to the U.S., so it is important that private consumers, those relying on the telephone as an essential service, not be powerless when faced with rate increases and scaled-down basic services. This is why I wanted to see the CRTC at least obliged to define basic service. As I was unable to achieve that here, I will try elsewhere.
There will have to be a debate at the CRTC on what constitutes basic telephone services, because this affects ordinary private citizens, who are now lost among the benefits of competition, all the expensive advertising they receive for various local, long-distance and, probably soon, international telephone services.
What I am saying is that it seems to me that this gives the Minister of Industry—not only he is the Minister of Industry but, with the reform of that department, he is also responsible for administering the Consumer Protection Act—additional obligations. In addition to being able to issue orders in council aimed at the CRTC in order to promote competition, the minister can also use such orders to strike a balance between liberalization, services to consumers and the cost of these services.
In fact, consumer representatives told us in committee that the only effects of competition they have seen so far are increases in core services. I will give you a concrete example: the increase in monthly local telephone rates, for each city, in 1992—I will start with Montreal—was $13.70. The rate today with the increase allowed is $21.30. This is a rather large increase. The proposed increase is $22 effective January 1, 1998 and $27 by the year 2002.
What we have been told by the CRTC is that consumers are to be compensated for such increases through lower long distance rates. What consumer associations and other institutions told us—and I asked a question about this in committee, but I did not receive a satisfactory answer—is that to qualify for a reduction in long distance rates, they must first spend $40 on such calls. This will not benefit the people who have the greatest needs and whose income is the lowest. It is true that this benefits large users and companies, but the small consumer, the ordinary citizen with a low income who needs this service has to be protected. This is our role here in the House of Commons.
Liberalization is fine, but it should not be at any cost and under any conditions. This is what we have to be careful about. This is why during this Parliament you will certainly see me rise, as long as I am my party's critic in this area, to speak not only about business development, which is very important, about the creation of companies, small and medium-size, which is also very important, but also to speak for the consumer. It is only by doing this that we can create the conditions required for a humane society, where many people are already being excluded and where the gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider. This is the reality created by the latest cuts in services. This is the reality created by the initiatives to reduce the deficit. It is not the people who are better off who paid for the fight against the deficit, it is the people who could afford it the least. They are the ones who paid for the effort to reduce the deficit. They made a major contribution. And now, they are paying again because of the liberalization of the economy and of services.
Consumer associations pointed out another issue, and it is in relation to this that I was disappointed that my amendment was not accepted by the government. Consumer associations representatives stated that it was important that core services be defined. I have already spoken of this and will come back to it, but they also say, and it is important, that where services like 9-1-1, information, telephone directories and other data are concerned, where reliability and confidentiality are concerned, it will be important from now on in this telephone service in which there are no longer just monopolies on which conditions can be imposed, for there to be neutral organizations under the supervision of the CRTC which can continue to look after the interests of consumers.
I greatly regret that, while the government has maintained such things as 9-1-1, directories and numbering, it has not agreed to include the point that this must not only facilitate interoperation—which, it seems to me was already part of its mandate under the seven major principles in clause 7 on telecommunications—but also ensure that the public interest be served. It is important to state this because the CRTC has received orders from the government that competitivity must be ensured, yes, but not to the detriment of the consumer. This is why, in the case of these services which have to be managed effectively, that is to say properly and efficiently, or in other words at the best cost, the public interest must also be served.
Consumers were also concerned that resellers be regulated, as well as national service distributors. The fact that the CRTC has had its licensing power removed takes one part of its leverage away from it. As for the question whether, with the new definition of telecommunications, telecommunicator and telecommunications service provider, resellers are covered, I have been told they are. At least the CRTC has one point of leverage left, but it will have to operate on a piecemeal basis, instead of making clear from the start the conditions under which these businesses may operate.
I will point out to you, moreover, that the only reseller we heard said it was totally in agreement with the licensing power, which was aimed precisely at establishing normal rules of competition.
As for customer protection, there is one aspect on which I touched in my speech on second reading, and will touch upon again here, the protection of confidential information. The CRTC is mandated to ensure confidentiality, and that is fortunate. But does it have the means to do so? That is another matter. I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to point out that the fact that Canada does not have legislation to protect personal and confidential information makes it an unreliable partner for other countries which have such legislation, despite its boast of being good in a number of fields.
So, perhaps you know that the European Union, which has adopted such protection, and which exchanges confidential information with countries it is sure will protect the information, can make such exchanges only with Quebec, because Canada does not have legislation to protect confidential information.
You know right away that I am going to say Quebec has the best legislation in North America, and I am proud of it. I hope the federal government will establish such legislation for interprovincial matters, without putting its big feet into Quebec's jurisdiction. That could be done by making Quebec's and doubtless other provinces' legislation effective in a number of areas, but I want to point out that there is a real problem, as a representative of the consumers' association pointed out to the committee.
This person indicated that people have complained of problems they had with telephone companies exchanging subscriber lists. That does not make a whole lot of sense, but that is what they are doing. It should be stopped. These people complained to the Quebec consumer protection office and were told it was a federal matter. There is a real problem. We know subscriber lists are exchanged just as we know—and it is a small part—about very powerful telecommunications networks.
I went to visit Teleglobe and I was flabbergasted. They are advanced, they are effective, and they are good but, at the same time, I can see how invasive of individuals' private lives the information they have could be if it were used by just anyone. There is a definite risk if anyone can do as they wish in this area of jurisdiction.
I will conclude by again lamenting that Quebec does not have jurisdiction over either communications or telecommunications, although this does not come within the purview of the House. The telecommunications revolution now under way will, in a few years, mean that the information highway will soon be much more than just a means of voice or data communication, but will also play a major role in the communication of culture. As McLuhan used to say, the medium is the message.
When the technical platform becomes identified with the message, then for a people such as the Quebec people, who have a culture to protect in North America, the fact of having no jurisdiction over communications, in the broader sense which takes in telecommunications, is extremely dangerous.
I could go on at some length about how I find this regrettable. I am going to come back to it as often as I can, but I will take this opportunity to say, in order to capture the public's attention, that this telecommunications and communications revolution is as important as the industrial revolution. We do not even see clearly the full impact of the bill being passed today. I do not believe anyone who tells me they know exactly what the impact will be.
This is also true of those in the business sector. Technology is evolving so fast, and this technology affects privacy, ownership and economic, social and cultural development. So, in this regard, I will always want to be more cautious than not, and I think that that is the role of lawmakers.
