Mr. Speaker, I now wish to speak to Motion No. 10, while my colleague writes out this amendment, which uses the same wording as Motion No. 11.
On the substance, this new provision is, in fact, an amendment to the wording in the initial bill. But it is not merely technical. Once again, consumers told us that, with the termination of monopolies over national service—that is what we are talking about, we are no longer talking about international service—there are problems with 9-1-1 service. There are problems with telephone directories. There are problems with companies deciding to transfer subscribers to another company with no warning.
There is therefore a need to ensure what is known technically as interoperation. But it is not just a question of interoperation of cables, whether they are fibre-optic or whatever. It is a question of services. Consumers are saying that what is needed is not just to facilitate interoperation, but to ensure a continued focus on public interest.
If we look at all the other clauses that give this clause meaning, what we see is that the CRTC will have authority to delegate to others, to a third party. In order to ensure that this third party does not focus solely on efficiency, on reducing costs to a minimum, but that it also focuses on public interest, this must be spelled out. Otherwise, if it had not been spelled out that it was for the purpose of facilitating interoperation, it could have been said that in any event there was provision for it in the spirit of the law.
If, in taking this approach, we want to address public interest, the CRTC must be given the mandate, in this particular clause, of ensuring that there is a continued focus on public interest in the way the CRTC will manage or transfer to third parties this responsibility of administering databases. This is extremely important. There can be secrecy surrounding databases: looking after directories, operating a 9-1-1 service, or other services not yet available. It is extremely important that public interest be included.
I urge my colleagues, from all parties in the House, to support this amendment, which adds something not to the CRTC's spirit but to its mandate in these particular cases. These are cases affecting ordinary citizens. There is the need to look out for the public interest.
It seems to me that there is no reason to object. On the contrary, it seems to me that it would even be to the political advantage of all my colleagues to say that, in this particular instance, where we are naturally ensuring the best competition between businesses, we are not, at the same time, forgetting about members of the public, who are faced with the new situation of having to deal with several companies providing local, long distance and now international services. They may well be receiving sales pitches in three different areas. There will perhaps be problems with 9-1-1 service, with directories, with databases and other services.
I urge my colleagues from all parties in the House to speak if they wish, but to be sure to support this amendment, which I think is essential.
The signal to liberalize, if, of course, it presumes we recognize that the economy is changing, is an extremely bad one unless accompanied by a greater interest in defending consumers, because these large companies exist only because of consumers; they are service companies. We must therefore ensure that, in the upheaval surrounding the termination of monopolies, consumers at least can count on their interests not being abandoned.
Therefore I move:
That Motion No. 10 be amended by adding after the word “networks” the following:
“and is consistent with the public interest,”