Debates of Dec. 9th, 1997

Telecommunications Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We are debating the group. Because the group encompasses everything within it, we can be sufficiently broad in context that it will allow the hon. member for St. Albert to wax eloquent for at least another seven minutes.

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

I appreciate that clarification, Mr. Speaker.

Motion No. 10 gives the CRTC wide latitude and almost unlimited powers, if not unlimited powers, regarding the regulation of these issues.

I want to make a point on the question of accountability. Who holds the CRTC accountable? Being a quasi-judicial body we all know that it is not accountable to anybody other than its members who sit at the government's pleasure and can be replaced if it is felt that they are not fulfilling their obligations in a manner the government would deem appropriate.

We saw that last week when the chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board was deemed to be participating in bad behaviour and now the government has taken action to remove him from his position.

Accountability is the issue. Motion No. 10 talks about giving a group of unknown, unelected and unaccountable people complete and absolute authority over matters that have great importance to Canadians as they conduct modern ways of communicating through telephone and so on.

Accountability is near and dear to my heart. I think of what happened, for example, in NavCan. The federal government, in its wisdom or lack thereof, decided that it would create an organization. We thought it was privatization. It was called privatization by the government. When we looked at the situation we learned that it was nothing close to privatization in any way, shape or form. Basically it was government by another format, government without accountability. That is exactly what we have in Motion No. 10. The CRTC has government without accountability.

Again, if I can use NavCan as an example, the government set up that organization on an uncompetitive basis. I give the Minister of Industry some credit, because Teleglobe has now been privatized and is allowed to operate in a competitive environment. NavCan was one of the bungles by the Department of Transport which decided that privatization did not mean competition. As a result we see an organization with none of the constrictions of having to live up to a competitive environment. In fact it has been given a monopoly in perpetuity.

Those types of decisions being made by government are totally inappropriate. I am glad to see that the same has not happened here.

I also look at NavCan and see that the competitive environment does not apply because it has been given a perpetual monopoly. I wonder what kinds of accountability have been put in place. Unfortunately I see none.

In Motion No. 10 we are seeing much of the same thing. There is very little in the way of accountability. When we take a look at NavCan we find out there are no shareholders because it is a not for profit organization. It has no shareholders to be accountable to.

Who is on the board of directors? The airlines and the players are on the board, but they are accountable to someone other than the people who have to pay. The Canadian travelling public is being taxed to pay for the navigation service and has absolutely no say whatsoever in the decision making of the organization. We have no say in the decision making of the CRTC in Motion No. 10. Therein lies the relevance of the argument that sometimes accountability is very important in this country. Accountability is very important in democracy.

The government is giving the CRTC these wide ranging powers, and I quoted them earlier, to determine any matter and make any order with respect to databases. It is pretty far ranging. It is this need for more accountability that I think has got to be inherent in the process as the government looks at alternative service deliveries, this being one in Teleglobe Canada.

The idea of privatization of the organization I think is very good. That is where we are moving in this interconnected world in which we live. We need to open up the business which the government has been in for so many years and has become stifled with over-regulation and stifled with bureaucratic administration. It is more than time to take these issues and allow the competitive forces to winnow out the waste, mismanagement and the inefficiencies to ensure that the Canadian public are given the best opportunities, the best service and the best quality at the best price. That can never happen within government.

While we continue to give organizations such as the CRTC these wide ranging, unfettered powers which allow them the entire scope to dictate, enforce and impose their own vision of what they think the market wants, I sometimes have a great deal of difficulty agreeing with that.

I listened to the amendment put forth by the member for Mercier which says that it has to be consistent with the benefits of the Canadian public or words to that effect. I understand that it puts some constraint on the CRTC. I think the motion therefore is well deserving of its merit. It is time that we brought some of these organizations to account.

The fundamental debate of accountability is growing today. People are wrestling with how we can build that in to ensure that the government's programs and decisions truly reflect what the public wants and are not ossified in a situation where we are stuck with yesterday's decisions even though the opportunities and technology allow for far better ways to provide the same service to the general public.

That is what I am concerned about. I used to be a small business person and service, quality and price were always important to my clientele. As far as I am aware, these things are important to every Canadian who wants better service and better quality at less price, if that is at all possible.

I am concerned about this blanket sweeping authority that we are giving to the CRTC in Motion No. 10. It is time that we try to rein in these commissions which have been given this blanket authority to ensure that they are accountable also in some way, shape or form. They have to listen to people. They have an obligation to ensure that they are effective in the way that they do their business.

That is what I am saying about accountability. It is all pervasive. It is time that we looked at ways to ensure that the CRTC and other organizations meet the public demand.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and discuss a couple of the amendments in this debate that really are of concern to us as Progressive Conservatives. I will speak later at length on the bill but I want to address the two amendments in particular that we are concerned about. The first one was addressed by the previous speaker. We share the same concerns about power given to the CRTC and other regulatory bodies and also to the governor in council.

Our concern about the first amendment we were to deal with was the proposed licensing for all carriers. The committee heard many witnesses who argued that this was an additional and unnecessary burden placed on the national industry which was already functioning well without it. Again, more burden, more paperwork, and it contradicts the whole purpose of the bill which is to privatize, commercialize and decentralize.

We will now move on to the second amendment about the governor in council which in the original bill was allowed to prescribe changes in any area as it relates to the provision of telecommunication services—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With apologies to the hon. member, I have already asked other members to stick to the amendment that is being debated right now, which is No. 10.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments on the remarks made by the previous speaker. I understand the the member for St. Albert always wishes to discredit various tribunals and legislative bodies that we have in the country. However, we heard very clearly from the users, the stakeholders, the people who will be involved in reducing or eliminating the monopoly of Teleglobe Canada.

It is important to know the rules for having a level playing field. Although I understand his objective, I do not think it was relevant to the debate.

Another item is the amendment to the motion which states that in the public interest, each of the bodies or tribunals that we have set up, whether it is for telecommunications or other sectors across Canada, part of their mandate is to act in the public interest.

My concern with the amendment to the motion would be to call into question if the public interest should be held in this motion only and not in the rest of the act. As I stated earlier, each one of the administrative bodies are there to act in the public interest. My concern would be that the perception is given that the CRTC does not act in the public interest.

I do not think that the hon. member for Mercier meant that. However, it could be implied that the concern is for the public interest only in that section. Therefore, I have a great concern that the comment is made only in that section. Maybe we need to make sure and to reconfirm administrative acts and tribunals so that it is very clear that it is being done in the public interest.

I was a little unsure about the point made by the member from the Conservative Party. I think we have gone beyond the points he was trying to make. Therefore, I cannot respond.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few contributions to the amendment to the government amendment made by the member for Mercier.

Basically, the purpose of that amendment is to ensure that when the CRTC carries out its operations that it does so in a way which will facilitate the interoperation of Canadian telecommunications networks and also acts in the public interest. We plainly have an ideological dispute in place as to the function of regulation and of operating markets and how we make sure that markets operate in the public interest.

Generally, markets will operate in the public interest. However, in other instances they will not and as a government and as a people we have to be prepared to ensure that markets which allocate resources and products in our community and in the country do so in a way which is in harmony with the public interest.

There is no sense in having an economy that works contrary to the public interest. One of the problems of the position taken by the speaker on behalf of the Reform Party, the member for St. Albert, of course, is that he would permit ideology to dictate common sense. We surely cannot in any sensible debate allow theory that does not work to apply to a situation in a way that would be contrary to the public interest.

I think what we have is a situation in which Teleglobe and indeed the telecommunications industry as a whole have exciting opportunities both here at home and abroad. It will be faced with important challenges as the world market is opened up and the Canadian market is further opened.

It is everybody's hope that Teleglobe survives, thrives, does well and creates more jobs in Canada and more profits that will of course be taxable in Canada and indeed provides a good service to not only Canadian users of telephones, indeed almost every Canadian, but also is competitive in the world economy.

In the context of that and in the context of moving into what is unchartered territory, we have to ensure that the Canadian public interest is also protected.

I take the point of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry that we should ensure that all regulation be in the public interest. Of course, that is true. However, I do not think it hurts to remind us that when we do regulate, when we do have an overseeing of agency which is designed to ensure that the industry in question being regulated is in fact operating in the public interest, it does not hurt us to be reminded that that agency should function in that way.

Indeed, flowing again from the comments of the member for St. Albert, his views seem to be that regulation is never in the public interest. If only for him we might have an amendment which reminds Canadians that we have the public interest at heart when we look at making sure that markets work.

In the instance that markets work effectively for Canadians, then we can leave them alone. We perhaps do not need to regulate very much the market for the buying and selling of bicycles. When we are dealing with something of this sort, we do have to ensure that Canadians are protected. That is the purpose behind this amendment, and I support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking to the amendment to Motion No. 10 which deals with the addition of the public interest phraseology into the amendment.

I applaud the member from the Bloc in bringing this forward. I think it is an interesting initiative and in general I support the idea that we need to make sure these quasi-judicial bodies like the CRTC are in fact operating in the public interest.

I think she has some legitimate concerns to question whether or not they actually are. I am not sure that this is the best way to deal with that concern, but I do applaud her for bringing it forward.

Why I share her concern regarding whether the CRTC is actually operating in the public interest is not so much really with the telecommunications side, but I certainly do share her concern in general when it applies to the CRTC on the broadcast side.

For example, we have a decision coming out of the CRTC in the next week or two where again they will be ruling on the ability for single faith channels to be broadcast within Canada. Whereas just recently they did approve a Playboy channel to be broadcast in Canada, they are eliminating single faith channels from being broadcast in Canada, continually turning down that decision.

It will be very interesting to see if the CRTC will actually allow those Canadians who are pursuing this kind of broadcast channel to be allowed to have access to that.

This is the kind of accountability that I believe the member for St. Albert was calling for, accountable back to the people.

To say that we are always operating in the public interest, as per the member's motion here, I think that can be demonstrated to not always be the case by these quasi-judicial bodies. People who are part of the public need to have some input into the process to say what is in their best interest. It seems to be that there has been some disconnection from the public interest as expressed by the public and what is actually happening here. I hope that we see some change from the CRTC particularly having to do with the broadcast side of it.

Yes, we do need to make sure that the public interest is part of the CRTC's mandate. I concur with the member from the other side though that by adding the public interest in this clause you would tend to want to add the public interest to every single clause in the entire act. I would think it should be implied that the CRTC is acting in the public interest throughout the act. To put it in one section and not have it in all the others tends to suggest that the other sections are not acting in the public interest.

I would suggest that maybe this is not the best way to approach it but I do concur with the member's intent. Beyond just adding the words “public interest”, what we really need and for a long time what this party has been calling for is a complete review of how the CRTC exercises its decisions that are in the public interest. There is some substantial breakdown there that needs to be dealt with on behalf of Canadians.

That is what we are primarily calling for in relation to this motion on the floor today. Again, I applaud the member but I think this might not be the best approach. We would call for a comprehensive review of the CRTC's mandate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I understand the hon. member for Mercier has already spoken to this group of motions, but the Chair will accept the member for Mercier speaking again because the amendment to the motion was made at the conclusion of the member's dissertation.

The hon. member for Mercier.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste the House's time, but simply to respond to some of the arguments I have heard to the effect that inclusion of the public interest in this clause might suggest that it does not apply elsewhere.

I would like to simply point out that, when the government amendment states “if it determines that to do so would facilitate the interoperation of Canadian television networks”, I believe that “facilitating the interoperation of Canadian television networks” is also a general mandate of the CRTC. Yet they take the trouble to mention facilitating interoperation.

Since a specific mandate is given, which is one of the seven elements of the Canadian telecommunications strategy, I find—and I believe there are a number of us that do—that it is not enough to state that interoperation must be facilitated, in areas affecting services to individuals in a changing world of communications. It is also important to look after the public interest.

If there is a risk to the public interest, there is also one for interoperation. We do not want to suggest that, elsewhere, it is not necessary to facilitate interoperation of networks.

I believe that this amendment is fully justified and I would appreciate it if the government side were also concerned about the public interest.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the Chair that an amendment was submitted by the hon. member for Mercier, which was moved to the end of the debate for a decision as to whether you would accept it or not. The amendment addressed inclusion of a definition of basic services.

You appeared to say just now that, if the hon. member for Mercier removed the last part of her resolution, you were prepared to accept it. I would ask you therefore to follow up on that, please, because the hon. member has agreed to remove the last part of her resolution.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I thank the hon. member for Joliette for bringing that to the attention of the Chair.

The motion which was originally put by the member for Mercier included three parts. There was some discussion as to whether or not the motion would be deemed acceptable if it were amended by the member to remove the third part. To do so we would have had to have had agreement of all hon. members because the motion was changed for technical reasons. That agreement was not forthcoming. Therefore the motion was out of order. The previous ruling that the motion was out of order will not be changed. The motion remains out of order.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the House has been asked to consent on acceptance or refusal of the motion. I do not believe that it was done at that time. If, in your opinion, it has not been done, I would request, through you, the consent of the House so that this motion may be moved.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair was at that time trying to accommodate the member for Mercier on the motion. For the Chair to be able to accommodate the amendment would have required the consent of all parties. That consent was not forthcoming. Therefore the Chair is not able to accept the motion. The motion is out of order. That is the end of it.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on the amendment to Motion No. 10.

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

On a point of order the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of some members here, I want to make it very clear that we know exactly what we are voting on. If I may do so for clarification, it is my understanding that at this point we are voting on the amendment proposed by the Bloc to Motion No. 10 but not on Motion 10 itself. Is that correct?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is correct.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

A recorded division on the amendment to Motion No. 10 stands deferred.

For the benefit of members of the House, because motions were withdrawn by those who presented them, Group No. 4 which consists of Motion No. 13, and Group No. 5 which consists of Motions Nos. 14 and 15, have been withdrawn and will not be dealt with.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions.