Debates of Dec. 9th, 1997

Telecommunications Act

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought I heard you say it is the motion on clause 8 that poses a problem in its third part.

Therefore, my understanding is that we can proceed with the amendment to clause 1, since I said I was prepared to remove item (c) dealing with clause 8, because it creates a problem. By the time we get to clause 8, the clerks will have given us their opinion. I do not want to unduly delay the business of the House, and I thank you for your patience.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The difficulty is that the motions are linked. We will proceed, as the Chair originally suggested, with the chief government whip, with representatives of other parties, and then we will come back to it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There are 15 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows: Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1 to 7 and Motion No. 12; Group No. 2, Motion No. 8; Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 9 to 11; Group No. 4, Motion No. 13; and Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 14 and 15.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting. I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12 to the House.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask at this time that we seek unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the Reform motions on the order paper today.

After consultation with the government we feel it would be in order for us to withdraw our motions at this time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I have been instructed that we do not require unanimous consent. The mover of the motion has asked that those motions be withdrawn. They will be withdrawn.

(Motions Nos. 8, 9, 13, 14 and 15 withdrawn)

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-17, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 6 on page 2 with the following:

“Commission shall provide telecommunications services except in accordance with a telecommunications service licence.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-17, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 13 on page 2 with the following:

“er shall, except in accordance with a telecommunications service licence, provide telecommunications services that are within a class of telecommunications services specified by the Commission.”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-17, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 2 with the following:

“newal or amendment of a”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-17, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 2 with the following:

“tion, issue a telecommunica-”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-17, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 2 with the following:

“(2) The Commission may”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-17, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 2 with the following:

“viders or classes of telecom-”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-17, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 3 with the following:

“revoke a telecommunications”

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-17, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 18 on page 5 with the following:

“(b.1) prescribing classes of telecommunications service licences:

(b.2) requiring telecommunications service licensees to publish their licences or otherwise make them available for public inspection;”

Mr. Speaker, when the Bloc Quebecois said it was prepared to support the bill, which deprives Teleglobe and Telesat of their monopoly, it did so for two reasons. First, because in the negotiations with the World Trade Organization, Canada insisted that ownership remain primarily Canadian, something which we feel is extremely important. Second, because in its original bill, the government increased its powers and those of the CRTC.

At the time, I made it clear that we felt the minister and the CRTC do not make sufficient use of their powers to protect consumers. At the same time, it is obvious that if neither the minister nor the CRTC have adequate powers, they cannot do anything for consumers. This is why we agreed with the spirit of the bill, in its original form.

Our committee heard officials from several major telecommunications companies currently providing services to Quebec and Canada, but not to the international community. They told us repeatedly that they did not want to be subjected to a licensing regime. They wanted such a licensing regime for international companies that will now be allowed to bring their cable services to Quebec and Canada, but not for them, because it would be too costly.

The committee also heard consumer groups from Quebec and Canada. They told us that, on the contrary, a licensing regime for international and national telecommunications companies at the beginning of this period of deregulation and end of monopolies was the best guarantee that consumers would know what to expect when they got services from one of these major companies.

Consumers are currently facing a difficult situation. Advertising in the telecommunications sector is second to none and consumers do not know what to expect. They do not always know their rights either, and it is not easy to take action, even with the CRTC in place.

Under such conditions, consumer associations said that they would agree with a licensing regime. The CRTC also testified and stated that although it agreed with the first version of the act and with a licensing regime, it was because it was not required to implement a licensing regime for all classes of services, since it could choose and since this regime could contain a number of requirements that would even facilitate the application of the Telecommunications Act.

So in fact we did not hear any evidence on this, except perhaps the concerns expressed by companies presently operating in Canada and in Quebec that regulations would become more intrusive, but it seems to us that this concern is contradicted by what the CRTC said when it claimed that, on the contrary, this would make enforcement less intrusive, more simple, and more predictable.

So under such conditions, we did not hear any evidence that can convince us to support the amendment that the government agreed with. I must admit that this may seem strange, but we prefer the spirit of the initial version and this is the reason why, in the case of the clauses that you listed, we have re-established the original intent.

But I would like to add something that I consider extremely important. It is the fact that the field of national and international telecommunications is changing extremely rapidly, both at the technological level and the service delivery level. The population cannot keep up with all these changes. So it is important, even if we think we can foresee what will happen in two years, that the CRTC have this ability to determine the types of licences in a field that is changing so quickly, without having to have the legislation amended.

Therefore, we did not hear any evidence that can convince us to support this amendment. We understand and we respect the objectives of these large corporations, which wanted to limit licensing to international companies, but we think that these companies could understand at any rate that the CRTC took a direction that even the consumers find regrettable and are trying to deal with by stating that their rights must be respected.

It should be remembered, and I will probably repeat this today, that for the consumers, deregulation and competition have resulted in a rapid rise in rates. Consumers are being told that by going forward with deregulation, by not interfering in the market and by opening it to competition, all problems will be solved and it will become a dream world, but they are not quite ready to believe this.

It should be pointed out that when the departments were redesigned in 1993, in fact under former Prime Minister Kim Campbell during her brief period as head of the government, and whose initiatives seem to suit the present government very well, the Department of Industry became of course a department for microeconomic development, but also the department responsible for protecting consumer rights. So we believe that in this respect, the department and the minister should ensure that Canadian companies can develop in a competitive environment, but, more importantly, they should also ensure that this environment does not have a negative effect on consumers.

So I wish to point out again that the field of telecommunications is changing extremely rapidly. It is an area where international players, through partnerships, mergers, and stock purchases are in fact constantly changing, even if it seems that Canadian features are being kept. Their international image, if I can explain it like this, is constantly changing.

Therefore I cannot understand why the department did not insist and explain to the large corporations that it had not intended to unduly compromise liberalization policies that enhance competition, as long as this competition continues to ensure that the people will receive services that are affordable, accessible and reliable.

In fact, we realize now that reliability is a problem. There have been problems in Quebec, we know that there have been problems elsewhere also, and so the CRTC should be given the means to react differently than with the piecemeal approach it now has. This is what we considered and still consider to be the proper course of action, and we are disappointed that the government has changed its mind on this.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to move a motion which clarifies the previous motion the House agreed to earlier this day.

Further to the order made earlier, I understand that it is the will of the House that, if any debate on any group of amendments finishes before 12 noon, any division on that group would be postponed until 12 noon and the House would proceed with the subsequent groups.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Agreed.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and points that have been brought forward by the member for Mercier.

She has proposed a number of amendments to the licensing provisions basically found in clauses 3 and 7. The substance of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois are to expand the scope of licensing powers of the CRTC from international services to the wording that existed prior to the amendments and agreed to by the committee, in which the CRTC had broad authority to license both international and domestic providers.

I want to point out that we did have an extensive review of this bill at the Standing Committee on Industry. Every witness spoke on this subject during the committee review. It was the opinion of the committee and the main concerns of the parties that appeared before the committee that the licensing provision in this bill at this time be limited to international services.

We listened to a number of witnesses express their strong support for the introduction of a licensing regime for international services but express great reservation about the use of the power for domestic services. Others argued for the retention of the broad powers, such as the Bloc with its amendments here today.

As the House knows, with any knew regulatory tool there are costs and benefits. With respect to the international services there is clear evidence that such a tool is necessary. While there will be compliance costs, they are small compared to the benefits of making sure that the changes of the Teleglobe monopoly to an international competition is made properly.

We acknowledge that there would be some benefit to have licensing authority for domestic services. However, we already have a fairly well developed regulatory framework. It is not clear on the additional costs and benefits and which one outweighs the other.

We heard very clearly that in its work in telecommunications, which is an environment that changes and advances every day and an environment that we as Canadians need to be leaders in, the CRTC has been moving away from regulating everything to making sure there is competition in that arena.

We listened to all the arguments made in committee. The decision to restrict the power to international service was taken after hearing all of the parties. We believe at this time that it is the right decision. It is most important that we get on with our requirements on adhering to the various telecommunications treaties that we have signed.

I would be against this amendment. I understand very clearly the member's concerns which she has brought forward, but I advise the House that we would be against this amendment.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important circumstance in the list of amendments the hon. member has brought forward. It is important for a couple of key reasons.

The first is that we need to ask ourselves a question as we did in committee concerning the issue of international licensing as opposed to domestic licensing. What really are we trying to accomplish and what is the cost benefit of doing so?

As has been mentioned previously by the hon. member on the other side, numerous presenters at committee expressed concern around adding a new layer of domestic licensing to telecommunications service providers. Yet we could find no clear justification for adding this new level of licensing.

Today under the CRTC, the Telecommunications Act and the Competition Act, there are already vehicles through which the government can deal with any problems in the industry. These vehicles that currently exist if exercised expediently are all that are needed. To layer a new level of licensing on to business interests in the telecommunications industry which are currently not under a licensing regime is just an expansion of a bureaucracy for no clear benefit. That is what became so evident in the committee.

I believe that is why we stand against these particular amendments put forward by the Bloc member.

We always have to ask and we are going to continue to ask the question, whenever there is some new overlay of regulation or licensing and the cost that is involved in adding the new licensing or administrative overlay, what is the benefit derived for the consumer. Somebody is going to have to pay for this licensing process. Someone is going to have to administer it.

Ultimately we know who that someone is. It is the taxpayer. It may be passed on to industry, but industry just flows that back to the consumer. One way or the other the taxpayer or the consumer funds these new regulatory regimes that are layered on top of the ones that are already there.

That was my concern in committee and it remains my concern. Unless we can demonstrate a very clear payback to the consumer for having these new licensing powers or licensing restrictions placed on players who currently do not have them and have not had them, and there have been no significant problems that cannot be dealt with through existing legislation, then we should not entertain adding a new level of bureaucracy to what is already there.

Even at the international level there is some question as to how long the need for licensing will be there if we are truly moving to global competition. We feel it is a valid question to examine how long we will need the licensing regime at the international level.

In general, my thrust is to let us make the current restrictions and legislation which is there today and surrounds this industry effective, instead of adding on new layers of bureaucracy to try to add new restrictions to the industry. It is already doing quite well without it.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-17, which deals with the privatization of Teleglobe Canada. It allows the marketplace to enter into the delivery of telephone call service to our international friends, clients and so on.

I basically want to talk this morning about the fact that we are glad to see the government has agreed this time to open up to competition and to ensure that the free market forces are allowed to play in this particular issue.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With the greatest respect to the hon. member for St. Albert, we are debating Motions Nos. 1 to 7 and Motion No. 12. We have quite a number to go through. Perhaps if we have debate of a more general nature, it might be left to the end to ensure that we have an opportunity to debate the motions.

I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the motions that are being debated rather than to have them too general in nature at this point.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to enter into debate with the Chair, but we seem to have some new rules coming along here where we are to be specific to the amendments being proposed and which are on the table today at this particular moment, rather than perhaps speaking on a more general issue.

I would ask the Chair to clarify if this is a new rule that is being imposed upon members, in essence to curtail the debate to the amendments and amendments only.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Hon. members, if this is a new rule, then it is a new rule that should have been here long ago.

We are debating Motions Nos. 1 to 7 and Motion No. 12. When we get into third reading then we can have a general debate. Right now at this moment we are debating Motions Nos. 1 to 7 and Motion No. 12. We will go on to Motions Nos. 8, 9 to 11, 13, then 14 and 15. If there is any time left over, then we will get into debate of a more general nature.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you may rule me out of order as I continue with my speech. I will continue on the basis I had originally intended, on the path that I had set out on, which is to talk more about the fundamentals since I will not be around this afternoon in order to deal with the more—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With the greatest of respect to the member for St. Albert, it is not the Chair's problem that the member will not be here later today for the debate on third reading.

On debate on Motions Nos. 1 to 7.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are you saying that you are ruling my speech out of order?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The member for St. Albert is out of order.

Debate on Motions Nos. 1 to 7 and 12. Is the House ready for the question on Motions Nos. 1 to 7 and 12?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on Motion No. 1.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

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