Telecommunications are the nerve impulses of the global economy in the emerging information society. Information of all sorts from all areas span the globe in a matter of seconds.

Changes in communications over the last number of years have been very rapid. No nation can survive without it. No nation can hope to compete in the global economy without the most up to date telecommunications systems.

The telecommunications sector is vital to the Canadian economy. It is the key to our international competitiveness and an important source of high quality jobs.

Not only did employment in telecommunications increase 15% between 1994-95 but the sector also generated revenues of some $22 billion. The sector accounts for over 145,000 high quality jobs and 3.4% of the GDP. It will be our key growth sector in the economy of the next century.

Much of that growth is due to the liberalization in domestic telecommunications that began some 13 years ago and has already greatly benefited Canadians and Canadian telecommunications companies.

The liberalization began with the licensing of competitive cellular telephone service in 1984. It moved forward with the privatization of Teleglobe in 1987 and Telesat in 1992. It advanced again with the introduction of long distance competition in 1992 and the passage of the new Telecommunications Act in 1993.

In a little over a decade, Canada has moved from a highly regulated telecommunications environment to one where competition can flourish.

Over the past three and a half years this government has continued to remove barriers to competition within Canada, modernizing the legislative framework that governs information and communication technologies.

This liberalization can serve as a model for countries that have yet to make the transition from monopoly to competition based services. It has equipped Canada with one of the world's most competitive policy frameworks as well as an independent telecommunications regulator.

It has also stimulated the development of new products and services, more consumer choice, increased economic growth and job creation, considering the licensing of new wireless services, personal communications services in 1995 and local multipoint communications services in 1996.

We saw a launch of Canada's first local multipoint communications systems site just last spring. LMCS is a wireless broad band system capable of carrying basic and advanced communications services.

It will enable Canadians to take full advantage of the information highway and offers a wide array of multimedia services. It will soon provide Canadian consumers with a competitive alternative to existing cable and telephone services.

The companies providing LMCS expect to invest over $1 billion and create 8,000 jobs within the next five years. Few would argue that the liberalization of basic telecommunications services has benefited Canadians but Canada is not the only nation moving to liberalize its telecommunications industry.

In fact, we are part of a world-wide trend. The bill now before the House extends the liberalization begun in our domestic telecommunications industry to the international arena. It clears the way for the implementation of an agreement that Canada concluded last February, the GATS agreement on basic telecommunications.

Many of the changes can be implemented administratively. Others require legislation. The bill provides the legal framework needed to implement the changes that require legislation.

I want to acknowledge the contribution to this bill by the House Standing Committee on Industry. This process resulted in amendments which improve a good bill. I must compliment all of the participants for their forthright and direct debate on putting their points forward and assisting in moulding this bill into the bill that is before the House today.

The government consulted extensively with industry and the provinces before negotiating the agreement and numerous witnesses voiced their opinions during the committee's review. The agreement eliminates many restrictions in the international telecommunications industry, liberalizing trade and investment. It covers basic telecommunications services, which include voice and data but not broadcasting.

Under the agreement, Canada committed to eliminating monopolies in the two areas still closed to competition: overseas telephone service and fixed satellite services. The bill therefore amends the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act.

Teleglobe's monopoly will end October 1, 1998. Telesat's monopoly will end March 1, 2000. Canada also agreed to remove foreign ownership restrictions in satellite earth stations and the landing of international submarine cables. This agreement will benefit both Canadian telecommunications companies and consumers.

Telecommunications companies will benefit through greater access to important markets. For example, the agreement gives Canadian companies full access to the U.S. market in basic telecommunications services. The use of reciprocity tests by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission will be severely curtailed.

Canadian companies will be able to invest up to 100% in telecommunications firms in many foreign markets. Canadian companies will also gain new access to the markets of developing nations. Another benefit is access to the WTO dispute settlement process which provides the safeguards needed to ensure that countries live up to their commitments.

The provision of telecommunications services will be governed by clear rules and disputes between WTO members will be resolved in a timely manner through this effective and timely process.

This bill also strengthens our ability to keep pace with a rapidly changing telecommunications environment. The CRTC will ensure that international telecommunications carriers are licensed according to Canadian rules and regulations in a manner that is consistent with WTO rules so as to ensure a level playing field for all market participants.

Just as domestic liberalization of telecommunications has benefited Canadians and Canadian telecommunications companies, we can expect to see similar benefits arising from the GATS agreement. The agreement is expected eventually to result in less expensive international long distance telephone rates as competition increases in the overseas long distance market.

It will also stimulate telecommunications investment around the world, generating new opportunities for Canadian telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers. Not only will Canadian telecommunications companies be able to compete for a piece of the international telecommunications pie, but the pie will get bigger.

This will produce more jobs and economic growth for Canada and support a strong, innovative domestic telecommunications sector, one that will deliver more and better services to Canadians at lower costs.

Two areas of concern for Canada were not affected by this agreement. Canada took an explicit reservation to allow us to maintain our current overall foreign investment regulations in telecommunications. This investment regime has seen major foreign firms such as AT&T and Sprint make significant investments in Canadian firms while ensuring that they remain Canadian owned and controlled. In addition, Canada has no ownership restrictions for resellers which compares well with the current situation in Japan, Europe and the United States.

Canadian culture is also protected as the agreement does not cover broadcasting, which continues to be covered by the Broadcasting Act. One of the reasons broadcasting was excluded was to ensure the protection of Canadian culture.

The GATS agreement on basic telecommunications follows closely on the Information Technology Agreement which liberalized trade and information technology equipment. Under that agreement, 40 governments agreed to phase out all tariffs on computers, software, telecom products and semiconductors beginning July 1, 1997 and eliminate them by the year 2000. These 40 economies account for 85% of the world's annual $500 billion U.S. trade in IT products.

Information technology plays a key role in our economy. These products are the building blocks of most industrial and business processes. Canadian users of information technology products are expected to benefit as tariff barriers fall. Together these two agreements provide a springboard for economic growth and development in the next century. They cover international business worth over a trillion dollars U.S. Their combined effect will spur telecommunications investments around the world, increasing opportunities for Canadian telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers.

Not only are they good for Canadians and Canadian companies, they contribute to international development by making information products and telecommunications services more affordable. Canada's open and competitive telecommunications market has produced highly competitive Canadian companies which are well prepared to take advantage of the new business opportunities created by these agreements. This is essential for Canada's continued competitiveness and economic health because, as much as we have accomplished, other countries are challenging us.

New communications and information technologies are remaking the world around us. If we do not want Canada to be left behind, we have to prepare ourselves for the new reality. Canada has long been a world leader in providing its citizens with access to broadcasting and basic telecommunication services, such as the telephone. In fact, we have virtually universal access to these core networks and services, with safeguards to ensure that Canadians retain access to these services in a competitive environment.

The combined forces of technology and trade liberalization are opening new frontiers, creating challenges that we can barely imagine. The opportunities are there for Canada to seize, but only if we move decisively and quickly to take advantage of them.

Canada will benefit as a result of the GATS agreement. I urge the House to move on this bill which is needed to implement the agreement with all due speed. I thank my fellow colleagues for their great contribution in debate, in committee and in this House to make sure that this bill gets passed.

Division No. 64Government Orders

12:50 p.m.

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-17 as it enters its final stage in this House.

On the whole, I believe the bill makes some positive changes within the telecommunications industry, both within Canada and internationally.

I appreciate that within the industry committee specific changes were made to the legislation which allowed for some key improvements that were badly needed.

Before I speak to the specifics of the legislation, I believe it would be wise to paint the context within which this legislation fits. By doing this we will be better able to understand its significance.

It is no longer news to say we are in the information age or the information revolution. Alvin Toffler, in his book “The Third Wave”, 15 years ago foresaw the forces thrusting us into the information age. I would suggest that we have only just entered it.

The advances in information technologies, both in computing and telecommunications, will continue to reshape our work, our social structures and generally our lives for some years to come.

Today we have just begun to experience the impacts of the information age. We are still developing new coping and information processing norms.

Some examples are that we no longer telephone a place to reach a person. Increasingly we simply call the person and connect directly with him or her. This can happen anywhere in North America. In fact, it can happen in most places in the world.

Voice and data mailboxes have removed time dependency on conversation. Magazines have gone from 10 national magazines to hundreds, if not thousands, on news, sports and specialty issues. Television has gone from a two to five channel universe to a 200 to 500 channel universe.

The numbers of those accessing the Internet is growing exponentially. With new information comes new ideas and in turn new data information packages result. Globally we are overwhelmed with information inputs.

I heard some years back that an engineer who graduates today from a four-year undergraduate program will be required to complete his degree effectively three more times in a 30 year career just to stay current.

I also remember a statistic of some years back that if you took all the information in the world today and assembled it, 20 years from today it would amount to 3% of the total.

The opportunities in this information age and information explosion are as significant as the social pressures it produces. The information age is transforming our world. Truly, it is a global phenomenon.

The ability to move information around the globe at the speed of light is improving daily. The digitization of voice, data and raw broadcast information, combined with fibre, wireless and satellite transmission technologies, multiplexing and compression techniques are making government policy shaped in the monopolistic earlier days of telephony and broadcast increasingly obsolete.

Government protectionist policies which attempt to stop or contain information at the border are becoming increasingly ineffective. Attempts by governments such as ours to continue to separate telecommunications information from broadcast information will become increasingly ludicrous.

As telecom and broadcast technologies converge through digitization, common transmission and delivery media, the ability to separate legislation for broadcast bits of data from telecommunications bits of data in transmission and delivery facilities will become unworkable.

Thankfully, Canadian technology in telecommunications and broadcast is state of the art in the world. We have the opportunity to benefit from our product expertise like few other nations in the world. A strong, proactive, Canadian pursuit of global markets is the best line of defence for Canadian sovereignty at home when compared to the old protectionist approach.

It is within these realities that we are considering the modest changes proposed by Bill C-17. The primary purpose of Bill C-17 is to allow for the gradual winding down of the monopoly positions held by Teleglobe and Telesat. This will allow others to legally carry long distance telephone traffic into and out of Canada. Conversely, as part of the World Trade Organization and the GATT agreements, it will allow Canadian companies to more fully participate in international long distance markets.

The bill simply keeps us in the game and is more of a cautious, follow the leader approach than anything demonstrating a longer term vision.

The Reform Party has long been committed to increased competition in the telecommunications industries. We support the move to an open marketplace which is not hindered by the expense and overhead of undue government interference.

In general the legislation is improved by the committee process and the amendment today moves the industry in the right direction.

Even though 69 countries representing 90% of the current international long distance market signed on to the WTO agreement, Bill C-17 still calls for new international licensing which basically is there to protect Canadian incumbents from the new international players who may choose to provide service to Canadians.

Conversely, these international entities will also place protective licensing regimes in their own countries. Therefore we do not have true global competition but rather mutually agreeable licensing regimes between countries, usually intended to protect incumbent carriers in each country. The consumer would be better served where true reciprocity and open participation existed rather than international licensing.

Technological advancements may eclipse licensing requirements and render them obsolete within a few years anyway. Even though I believe a sunset clause, which would provide an opportunity to review the licensing regime through reciprocal international agreements some time in the future, would send a stimulating signal to Canadian industry to be competitively aggressive at home and abroad, this would in turn serve to strengthen the companies and better serve the Canadian consumer in the long run.

Unfortunately the government would not consider the inclusion of a sunset clause. Thankfully though, due to the work done in the industry committee, the licensing regime is now restricted only to international long distance carriers rather than a new licensing regime for both domestic and international service providers as called for in the original legislation.

A second component of the proposed legislation applies more to the domestic market operation than to the international long distance marketplace. The change I am referring to is the new administrative oversight powers granted to the CRTC by the legislation.

Let me make it clear that the Reform Party supports the efficient operation of the marketplace and a regulatory environment that promotes competition. Thus, with the competition in the domestic long distance market and the development of competition in the local switched network market, the allowance for some measure of third party administrative function for common network interoperability makes some sense.

For example, it makes sense that a third party administration of the North American telephone numbering program rather than the incumbent telephone companies be responsible for this activity. There will likely be other administrative entities established to address other network interoperability concerns.

The CRTC is given the power to establish and oversee these entities. Clearly the refinement to the original legislation which allows for broad new sweeping powers to the CRTC has been addressed and the administrative powers are now restricted to issues of network interoperability. Without this change we could not have supported the bill.

Even with the restricted administrative powers granted to the CRTC by the legislation, we would encourage the government to do the following. First, it should hold to its stated preference for less regulation and only entertain administration functions on behalf of the industry when the industry calls for the administrative body to take on the work.

Second, consistent with section 7 of the Telecommunications Act, it should set a management structure in place which rewards efficiency and cost effectiveness for any administrative body that is established.

Third, it should ensure as per the legislation that the costs of the administrative functions are borne by the industry and not the taxpayer. This should be done on a pay for services basis by participating industry players.

The end of the Teleglobe monopoly will not only allow competition from abroad to place downward pressure on overseas callings but will enable Canadian companies to enter the huge global marketplace, which is estimated to be worth $800 billion as compared to our $18 billion domestically. The legislation will result in the end of the Teleglobe monopoly.

The bill originally called for a domestic and international licensing regime. In committee Reform pushed hard to limit the licensing regime to international telecommunications services so we would not see the reregulation of domestic services. These changes were made in committee.

We also pushed hard to limit the blank cheque powers granted to the CRTC in the original bill. The clauses in question were amended to better define the CRTC powers so they are not expanded from the current jurisdiction but can only delegate necessary functions to facilitate the interoperation of the Canadian telecommunications network.

The bill is a step in the right direction in so far as it promotes competition and partially removes outdated foreign ownership restrictions that date back to the protectionist world of old. However, more work could be done in eliminating the foreign ownership restrictions for Canadian telecommunications carriers.

While positive to an extent the bill is not far sighted in terms of where the telecommunications industry is going but is catching up to today's realities. Increased globalization will soon cause additional pressures on our domestic telecommunications policy. It is too bad Bill C-17 does not look further ahead.

Bill C-17, though imperfect, should be passed for the benefits it brings forth, which will enable the Canadian industry to better prepare for an ever changing marketplace.

Division No. 64Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

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—

Division No. 64Government Orders

1:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If this bill is really important to the government, I think the least that we could expect is quorum. I think if you look, the government does not have quorum.

Division No. 64Government Orders

1:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Resuming debate.

Division No. 64Government Orders

1:15 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

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.

Division No. 64Government Orders

1:40 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to debate Bill C-17. I feel like I am in a time warp. Perhaps it is deja vu all over again, only backwards. I remember sitting here years ago when the government members formed the opposition. They opposed measures like this. Now that they are in government they are supporting them.

Many of these measures were originally proposed and instigated by the Progressive Conservative government 10 years ago. At that time Liberals were vehemently opposed to them. The Teleglobe divestiture bill was introduced in March 1987 and the Liberals voted against it. They said it was an awful thing, it would hurt Canada, it was bad for Canada, we cannot have free trade of this sort of thing.

In December 1991 a bill was introduced to privatize Telesat Canada. Again the Liberals voted against it. They said it was a terrible thing, we need all this protection.

The telecommunications bill was introduced in 1993 and again the Liberals opposed it.

All the aspects of the bill we are debating today enhance and endorse the proposals we made in 1987, 1991 and 1993. They go even further than we went. It is another example of a flip-flop, a change of direction on behalf of the Liberals who opposed the GST so strongly and then all of a sudden adopted it as their own. They love it. They want it. They have tried to expand it and they have tried to foist it on the provinces.

We all know the Liberals stood in the House hour after hour, night after night, pounding the table against free trade. Now they have enhanced, endorsed and expanded it. They want to expand it even further.

The next thing we will see happen, I predict, is the EH-101 helicopter position which we adopted. We ordered the helicopters and the Liberals cancelled them. It will be really interesting to see what decision they come up with. Certainly the search and rescue people and the people in our military want the EH-101 helicopters. That was a decision made by us and changed by the Liberals. It will be interesting to see if the Liberals again follow the Conservative lead. They have certainly established a consistent pattern of following that lead. They can say what they like, but actions speak louder than words, and their actions truly say we endorse Conservative policies and love them and think they are great.

I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-17. From the outset I would like to say that because it was our idea in the first place and because we support the general thrust of it and the fact that it makes the business much more competitive and viable, we are going to support the bill. The Conservative Party will be voting in favour of it.

Bill C-17 implements many of the commitments made by Canada under the agreement on basic telecommunications to the general agreement on trade and services, which again is a form of free trade that was opposed by the Liberals when in opposition. When we are back there in a few more years we will probably be doing the same thing again.

This agreement was negotiated among 68 nations. It liberalizes international trade in basic telecommunications. It enhances freer trade in the telecommunications sector and it opens opportunities for Canadian businesses. It makes it more competitive which will bring down the price for consumers. Everyone wins with this bill.

Under the terms of the agreement, Canada is committed to end the carrier monopolies and to remove certain restrictions on foreign ownership. In return, the other signatory countries will open up their markets to us. Our companies, which have proven to be very competitive in this field, will be able to compete in other countries which they are now locked out of.

Obviously this is good for Canada. That is why Progressive Conservatives support the bill.

There were a few concerns which we had. Fortunately the Minister of Industry made some amendments after hearing testimony from the users and the people in the industry. Appropriate amendments were made, and we even supported them.

The first amendment which we were really concerned with dealt with licensing only for international carriers. Bill C-17 originally proposed licensing for all carriers.

However, the committee had many witnesses argue that this is an additional and unnecessary burden placed on a national industry which was already functioning well without it and contradicts the whole bill. We believe this will continue to be the case even under the terms of this new bill and, therefore, licensing for national carriers would be unnecessary.

The second major amendment put forward deals with clause 46.1(b) where the governor in council may prescribe changes in any area that is related to the provision of telecommunication services by Canadian carriers. Witnesses again came before the committee and argued that this would provide the commission with powers well beyond the intent of the legislation and far beyond what they needed.

The amendment now in place deletes that clause altogether and it proposes a more specific description of the powers of the commission to be placed in the preamble to limit their power and leave the decision making up to the users and the people affected.

These major amendments were primarily industry driven and we support them. We believe they offer a greater degree of freedom for the industry to compete and there is now much less regulatory burden than originally proposed, while maintaining adequate protection for consumers.

We have also believed this industry would thrive under a framework we established when we were the Progressive Conservative government and authorized the Telecommunications Act and privatized Telesat and Teleglobe in the first place. The proof today is in the success we have witnessed in this growth industry. Certainly Canada is one of the major leaders in the whole world in this sector and has been able to access these markets and foreign markets through these approaches. Our industry has already taken on the telecommunications world.

We are confident they will succeed and consumers will benefit from the competitive pricing in both national and international services.

When the Minister of Industry spoke on this bill during second reading on November 4, 1997 he said “The purpose of Bill C-17 is to pursue the liberalization of Canadian telecommunications which started more than 10 years ago and has already benefited Canadians and Canadian telecommunications companies”. That was really nice praise from the Liberal Minister of Industry for the Progressive Conservatives who initiated this whole process in the first place. Certainly it is encouraging for us to see the Liberal government adopt and proceed with them and even take them further than we did.

That ends my remarks. We will be supporting this bill. We approve of it in principle and we approve of it in particular.

Division No. 64Government Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Chris Axworthy NDP Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-17, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act.

We know that as part of its WTO and GATS basic telecommunications commitments, Canada agreed to substantially liberalize its international services market. These commitments include, among other things, ending Teleglobe Canada's monopoly on overseas traffic next October 1 and removing traffic routing rules for all international services by December 31, 1999. Bill C-17 is the legislation that puts these commitments into legal effect.

I would like to begin today by saying a few words about Teleglobe Canada. Most of us will know that Teleglobe Canada provides international telecommunications services for Canadians by routing calls to and from approximately 240 countries and territories. The fiscal year 1996 was a year of unprecedented growth for Teleglobe as a global provider of overseas telecommunications services.

Teleglobe has announced that it has reached major milestones in its international development and in the expansion of its customer base. This was achieved through—and I think we all agree—intensive sales records, geographic expansion, new product launches and the optimization of Teleglobe's global network.

As a result of all this, in 1996 traffic and earnings for Teleglobe increased substantially and its market capitalization doubled. In addition, Teleglobe International has established its presence as a network operator in three of the largest long distance markets in the world: the U.S., Germany and the U.K. I am sure that in 1998 we will see Teleglobe continue its U.S. expansion and develop new traffic sources in Europe, Asia and Latin America.

Teleglobe, as we know, views this legislation and the liberalization of this market as extremely positive for both consumers and industry participants since it believes it will stimulate further innovation and demand for international services. This is in the context of Teleglobe losing its monopoly and being thrown fully into what is now a very, very competitive international market.

Teleglobe is clearly poised for the new business opportunities that are resulting from this continuing trend. Teleglobe is indeed a company of which Canadians should be proud. It has been made clear this is a company that is not simply content with just surviving in the global economy. It wants to lead the field of telecommunications, and this enthusiastic, positive and optimistic message comes through loud and clear from Teleglobe.

I will comment on how important this positive approach is as we in Canada go about building a first class economy capable of taking on and beating the world and yet at the same time maintaining a desirable level of social cohesion and community. This of course is not an easy task. I come at this question fresh from our experiences in my home province and in the belief that what has happened in Saskatchewan under the NDP government of Premier Romanow presents useful lessons to Canada as a whole.

I will relate a few words about how we might more effectively co-ordinate our economy as we move into this new global environment, or not so new global environment now. The economy of one small prairie province is not the Canadian economy. But a province that went from the brink of bankruptcy to the first balanced budget in Canada, which has had consistently the lowest unemployment rate in the country and leads Canada's economic indicators across the board must have done something right.

It started from the premise that at heart society represents a commitment by those in it to share in the future together, shared opportunity and shared responsibility. This has always been the Canadian way and must—without being Pollyannaish—be our guide as we strive to build a modern world class economy in Canada, as we strive to prepare to meet the economic challenges of the new millennium and to tackle the social and economic challenges of injustice and inefficiency, of mass unemployment and poverty.

This must be done in an increasingly integrated global market, not by turning the clock back, not by evading the changes that have taken place in the global economy or even by just tolerating them, but by understanding, mastering and exploiting them to our advantage, by taking charge of change and making it work for all of us and by ensuring Canadians are equipped to prosper with change.

This question could be merely rhetorical but what should we be doing differently? What will work? It is of critical importance for our national mindset for us all to be outward looking, optimistic and confident. An important part of becoming world leaders is the confidence that we can do it, but we have to keep raising the bar and clearing it. Teleglobe is a good example of that approach.

Here is what Saskatchewan did which is entirely in keeping with what the new labour government in Britain has done and indeed with what social democrats all over the world have done. It is a partnership process driven by the belief that we are all in this together, this being the task of building a world class economy and we being governments, business, labour, communities, educational institutions, aboriginal peoples, all of us. No more sterile debates about public purses, private market versus state, employer versus employee, regulation or deregulation, them and us.

What has happened in Saskatchewan? As I say, I recommend this approach to the federal government. Stakeholders in partnership discussed and mapped out a vision, a future for that economy, not a plan but rather a direction and a set of goals based on identified strengths and weaknesses. These goals included job creation targets and what the economy should look like in 10 years.

Through the same partnership process came the identification of what was needed in order to get there, how to strengthen our strengths and address our weaknesses. Once again on partnership, assigning who could best do what was needed: government, private sector, educational institutions, et cetera. It has been a process of vision and tasks to attain that vision crafted in partnership, and it has worked.

Yogi Berra, the famous baseball wit said “if you don't know where you're going, you might end up somewhere else”. I would recommend this partnership approach, which is in place in all successful economies around the world, to the industry minister and to the federal government. We need not just consultation but real partnership so we know where we are going and how we are going to get there.

There is a fair bit to do as we know. Canada's wealth creating base is not large enough. Our levels of investment in skills are insufficient and we have a significant innovation gap. We all know only too well the crushing consequences of poverty and unemployment and underemployment as examples. If governments cannot solve these problems alone, then neither can the private sector, nor can any of the stakeholders alone.

A modern and effective economic approach needs to provide the framework in which these challenges can be met and conquered and to build the partnerships necessary for success. It is time to break out of the past and address today's and tomorrow's questions with contemporary answers.

The federal government has a critically important activist role in this regard, activist but different from in the past. We must continue to ensure that we have the very best of opportunities for Canadians in terms of job opportunities and the very best opportunities for those who create those jobs in our economy, the private sector.

While I believe that the market economy is the best mechanism generally for allocating the vast majority of resources and markets and, therefore, can and do work in the public interest, I do not think that in all circumstances they guarantee it. Here is a good example. The market economy is in the public interest, but the public interest is not satisfied just by having a market economy.

There are public policy goals that the market cannot achieve. We all know that: education, health care, regional policy. The trick of course is to ensure that government intervention works to better achieve its purpose than with the market actions alone.

This legislation is an example. While Canada has liberalized its telecommunications market, there is still clearly a need for rules to ensure an orderly marketplace and to ensure that the objectives of the Telecommunications Act continue.

I think it is fair to say that WTO and the GATS agreement and the accompanying liberalization of Canada's international telecommunications services market will actually result in the entry of many more companies, both domestic and foreign, into the already competitive Canada-U.S. market and Canada-overseas market.

Our concern here is that these developments, along with the long-term downward trend and long-distance carriage council, make it increasingly possible for companies to circumvent Canadian telecommunications policy and therefore we need to ensure that we guard against that.

I think it is fair to say that some of the clauses in the bill, clauses 1, 3 and 7, would give the CRTC authority to introduce the licensing regime to ensure that our telecommunications policies are respected and for acting competitive safeguards to be put in place to prevent operators from exploiting differences and the different degrees that market openness exists between countries to gain an unfair advantage.

Let me conclude in the minute that I have left to indicate that Bill C-17 flowed from a number of free trade agreements and free trade type agreements that it puts into place to the commitments that Canada made in those deals.

These are agreements that ignore critically important issues such as the environment and labour standards and the protection of social programs, all very serious concerns to all Canadians. As a result, we seem not to have learned very much from these activities as these circumstances that are in the MAI show. That being said—

Division No. 64Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleagues, it being 1.57 p.m. pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Division No. 64Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Division No. 64Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Division No. 64Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Division No. 64Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Division No. 64Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Division No. 64Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Division No. 64Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleagues, pursuant to order made earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

It being 2 p.m., we will proceed to statements by members.

VolunteersStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Mr. Speaker, Alexis De Tocqueville once wrote that volunteerism is the foundation of the civil society. I am happy to report to the House that the spirit of volunteerism is alive and well in Winnipeg South.

Last month I attended two receptions for volunteers at the Dakota and Greendale community clubs. Without these volunteers who quietly go about running the community centres without adulation or acclaim, there would be no hockey, no soccer, no baseball, no dance, no recreational activities for seniors.

I believe, as Jeremy Rifkin and many others do, that volunteers such as the ones from the Greendale and Dakota community clubs serve as a third pillar which complements the role of government and the private sector in our society.

At this festive time of the year it is appropriate to recognize the efforts of those who make things a little better for others. So, to the many civic-minded volunteers who undertake work of such importance to the quality of life in my riding, I simply want to say thank you.

TelecareStatements By Members

December 9th, 1997 / 2 p.m.

Liberal

John Richardson Liberal Perth—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay homage to the Stratford and district Telecare organization.

Since 1979 Telecare has been a source of comfort for those in the Stratford area who are in a personal crisis. Highly trained volunteers provide a 24 hour a day, non-judgmental, caring, listening service for the lonely, distressed and suicidal. They also give reassurance calls to those who need them, enhancing their ability to remain independent in their own homes.

On behalf of the whole community, I would like to thank the 75 or more volunteers who devote their time to helping their fellow citizens.

On behalf of the community, I wish to thank the 75-plus volunteers who generously give their time for the well-being of others.