Mr. Speaker, at the time of second reading, the Bloc announced its support for the bill, which, need I point out, puts an end to the monopoly enjoyed by the international telecommunications carrier Teleglobe and to Telesat's monopoly over Canadian satellites.
We did so because in its initial bill, the government increased the powers of the minister and the CRTC in international telecommunications now that restrictions have been lifted and it took the opportunity to dust off the Telecommunications Act in the light of the new conditions of this lifting of restrictions in the domestic market.
Between second reading, report stage and third reading the government yielded. Despite some concerns and reservations we will support the bill. Since the end of Teleglobe's monopoly was announced some time ago and the company itself, whose head office is in Montreal, sought the end of its monopoly, we will support the bill at third reading, although we have many concerns.
Fortunately, to reach this point, the government, and we will encourage it to continue on the same path, had some difficulties, which we must acknowledge, in negotiations with the World Trade Organization. It continues to insist on a majority of Canadian ownership of national telecommunications, although the majority has shrunk and can be circumvented in many ways through corporate ownership with the majority of shares of Canadian companies owned by American or other foreign companies.
However, I will take the opportunity to express my concerns and tell you that I and the Bloc will use all the means at our disposal to ensure that Canada does not let itself slide down the slippery slope to total deregulation.
I should say right off that the Bloc Quebec sorely regrets Quebec's lack of powers in the fields of communications and telecommunications. The Supreme Court dashed all our hopes, although history shows that Quebec was at the forefront in the late 1930s.
However, since we have no direct powers, we cannot act directly. I would also say that perhaps we are even more concerned about what the Telecommunications Act calls Canadian sovereignty, because it is unfortunately through this that Quebec sovereignty can be protected.
I have heard optimistic speeches on the liberalization of telecommunications, the impact of deregulation and our confidence in our large corporations. I admire large corporations like Teleglobe and Nortel, and their entrepreneurial spirit, but at the same time I do not want to overlook the fact that Canada is dwarfed by the United States and that, as dynamic and promising as it may be, Teleglobe remains a minor player on the North American and international markets. Teleglobe is undoubtedly a dynamic company, but this does not mean nothing can go wrong.
The telecommunications market is expanding, if not booming. And what we are going through in this area is similar to what was experienced during the industrial revolution at the turn of the century. In such a booming market, there can be fierce competition but it cannot last because large corporations have this natural tendency to try to make a deal one way or another and try to make it legal.
Bear in mind that the first consumer actions in response to the industrial revolution were aimed at preventing trusts, at preventing collusion between big companies. I am not saying this is wrong. There is no right or wrong in economics, only market forces. And market forces are ruthless. If you want to be part of the game, you have to be in the game. But when the market in question is a public services market, the lawmaker cannot assume that consumers will be well served by competition and—