Accordingly, Motion No. 11 will be withdrawn. If the hon. member for Mercier would like to amend Motion No. 10, she would have the right to do so in debate.

We are now debating Motion 10. Group No. 3 no longer includes Motion Nos. 9 or 11. It is exclusively Motion No. 10.

Telecommunications ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

St. Catharines Ontario

Liberal

Walt Lastewka LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, this section had a lot of debate in the Standing Committee on Industry. When we were doing some rewriting we had second thoughts, that what appeared in writing was not exactly what we meant. Following the committee we had discussions with as many of the groups as possible to make sure that we had in writing was exactly what we had agreed on in committee.

Therefore this amendment is being brought forward to reflect what we had thought the decisions were by the committee.

Telecommunications ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I ask that Motion No. 11 be withdrawn and made into an amendment to Motion No. 10, which would read as follows:

46.1 The Commission may, if it determines that to do so would facilitate the interoperation of Canadian telecommunications networks and is consistent with the public interest,

I move this amendment because, during debate in committee—

Telecommunications ActGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

It is necessary that the hon. member for Mercier make her amendment in writing and submit the amendment at the table.

Telecommunications ActGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to speak to Motion No. 10, while my colleague writes out this amendment, which uses the same wording as Motion No. 11.

On the substance, this new provision is, in fact, an amendment to the wording in the initial bill. But it is not merely technical. Once again, consumers told us that, with the termination of monopolies over national service—that is what we are talking about, we are no longer talking about international service—there are problems with 9-1-1 service. There are problems with telephone directories. There are problems with companies deciding to transfer subscribers to another company with no warning.

There is therefore a need to ensure what is known technically as interoperation. But it is not just a question of interoperation of cables, whether they are fibre-optic or whatever. It is a question of services. Consumers are saying that what is needed is not just to facilitate interoperation, but to ensure a continued focus on public interest.

If we look at all the other clauses that give this clause meaning, what we see is that the CRTC will have authority to delegate to others, to a third party. In order to ensure that this third party does not focus solely on efficiency, on reducing costs to a minimum, but that it also focuses on public interest, this must be spelled out. Otherwise, if it had not been spelled out that it was for the purpose of facilitating interoperation, it could have been said that in any event there was provision for it in the spirit of the law.

If, in taking this approach, we want to address public interest, the CRTC must be given the mandate, in this particular clause, of ensuring that there is a continued focus on public interest in the way the CRTC will manage or transfer to third parties this responsibility of administering databases. This is extremely important. There can be secrecy surrounding databases: looking after directories, operating a 9-1-1 service, or other services not yet available. It is extremely important that public interest be included.

I urge my colleagues, from all parties in the House, to support this amendment, which adds something not to the CRTC's spirit but to its mandate in these particular cases. These are cases affecting ordinary citizens. There is the need to look out for the public interest.

It seems to me that there is no reason to object. On the contrary, it seems to me that it would even be to the political advantage of all my colleagues to say that, in this particular instance, where we are naturally ensuring the best competition between businesses, we are not, at the same time, forgetting about members of the public, who are faced with the new situation of having to deal with several companies providing local, long distance and now international services. They may well be receiving sales pitches in three different areas. There will perhaps be problems with 9-1-1 service, with directories, with databases and other services.

I urge my colleagues from all parties in the House to speak if they wish, but to be sure to support this amendment, which I think is essential.

The signal to liberalize, if, of course, it presumes we recognize that the economy is changing, is an extremely bad one unless accompanied by a greater interest in defending consumers, because these large companies exist only because of consumers; they are service companies. We must therefore ensure that, in the upheaval surrounding the termination of monopolies, consumers at least can count on their interests not being abandoned.

Therefore I move:

That Motion No. 10 be amended by adding after the word “networks” the following:

“and is consistent with the public interest,”

Telecommunications ActGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, we will certainly be interested to review the amendment put forward by the hon. member from the Bloc. I think it is an interesting concept and we will be giving it full consideration.

I am particularly appreciative of the opportunity to speak to this amendment which has come forward.

The impact of this part of the bill is very significant. The concern which many of the presenters at the industry committee had pertained to this section of the proposed legislation.

Prior to this amendment the proposed legislation gave new, broad sweeping administrative powers to the CRTC which some witnesses referred to as a blank cheque or as being open ended.

To quote from the proposed legislation, prior to the amendment, at subclause 46.1 of clause 6:

(1) The Commission may administer

(a) numbering resources—

And it goes on to define what that means. It continues:

(b) any other activities that the governor in council may prescribe that are related to the provision of telecommunications services by Canadian carriers.

That was how the subclause read prior to the amendment. At that stage the commission could administer any other activity related to the provision of telecommunications services.

It is not too surprising that so many witnesses saw this as being a blank cheque to the regulator. This is an open door to more regulation, not at all consistent with Reform's longstanding call for less government interference and less micro management of the telecommunications marketplace by the CRTC.

In fact, it is not consistent with the minister's statement concerning this legislation in the House on November 4 when he referred to this legislation as a step forward in the government's strategy to promote competition, innovation and growth in Canada's telecommunications industry. He also stated that the objective of the legislation was to free Canada's telecommunications and information technology sectors to be competitive, dynamic industries.

We should all take note that the majority of witnesses to the industry committee were also concerned about these broad sweeping powers being given to the regulator. This kind of thing, where regulators can change the rules at any time in the middle of the game, chases players away. It does not attract them. The business interests in the telecommunications industry are no different and that was made abundantly clear to the industry committee.

This is not to cast aspersions on the hardworking individuals currently charged with the task of carrying out the regulations, it is simply a recognition of the nature of bureaucracies.

It is inherently easier for them to grow than to shrink and the open ended approach to the legislation, without this amendment, provided a whole new growth opportunity to the CRTC, a bureaucracy which in our view is already far too extensive.

How does the amendment to clause 6 paragraph 46.1 address this point? The amendment serves to clarify and define the new administrative powers of the CRTC. I would have liked, though, to see it go even further in clarifying its administrative powers. However the amendment is a move in the right direction.

The restriction applied is that the CRTC may only consider using its new administrative powers when it can clearly be demonstrated that it would “facilitate the interoperation of Canadian telecommunications networks”.

Telecommunications advancements have driven the changes we are all witnessing in this industry. Competition has driven down prices, rewarded efficiency and stimulated new markets and innovation. Some practices which were acceptable in the past are no longer practical. Some common services carried out by the incumbent telephone companies may be better administered by a third party which serves all the Canadian telecommunications network of common Canadian carriers.

Long distance and local switch network competition creates a valid argument for a neutral third party to administer things like the North American numbering plan, which will manage the assignment and portability of area codes and telephone numbers. In other areas is the need for a third party to administer funding mechanisms by which long distance revenues of the various carriers contribute to the support of local switch network service.

It has been suggested that some portion of common administrative functions concerning 911 or directory services might also some day be included as part of the third party administrative functions.

These administrative third parties, if and when they are created, will be under the regulatory oversight of the CRTC. Therefore the amendment constrains the commission to only getting involved in administrative functions which will clearly serve to facilitate some common aspect of network interoperability per the kinds of examples given. This is better than the wide open “any other activities” wording of the unamended version of the legislation.

I point out to the government, the CRTC and the industry another constraint which is applicable to the amendment. Section 7 of the Telecommunication Act deals with Canadian telecommunications policy. Item (f) in this section requires that the policy must foster increased reliance on market forces for the provision of telecommunications services and ensure that regulation where required is efficient and effective.

These new administrative bodies must be designed with management processes that reward efficiency and effectiveness. This is doubly important to the industry as well because the legislation in clause 6, section 46.4, allows for those performing these delegated administrative functions on behalf of the industry to charge the industry participants for the services provided.

Ultimately, though, we recognize that these costs would be passed on to the consumer, which further underlines the commission's responsibility to build in competitive business models rather than government oriented models for those entities which perform the common telecommunications network functions. It would reward those who increase the quality of service for lower cost rather than those who would have bureaucracy grow and always spend the budget plus a bit more.

In summary, the amendment constrains the open ended blank cheque which concerned us and the industry when the minister first put forward the legislation. It constrains the administrative powers of the CRTC and delegates it to only those areas which can demonstrably be shown to facilitate interoperation of the Canadian telecommunications network to move from a monopolistic environment to a more open ended and competitive model. Therefore I will be recommending that we support this amendment.

Telecommunications ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Before we resume debate on Motion No. 10 we have the amendment of the hon. member for Mercier.

Telecommunications ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are we debating the amendment or Motion No. 10 which is the original amendment?

Telecommunications ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

We are debating the original motion and the amendment is on the floor. We are now debating the amendment. Because the amendment amends the original motion, the Chair will be fairly generous in its interpretation of relevance for the benefit of members who wish to speak.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on a totally different subject.

I think you would find consent in the House to propose the following motion to compensate for the fact that earlier this week the late show was cancelled and a number of people were deprived of an opportunity to make their statements and receive a further response. With the consent of the House I would like to move:

That on Tuesday, December 9, and Wednesday, December 10, proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall last for not more that 42 minutes in order to permit discussion of seven items.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Is there consent?

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; of Motion No. 10; and of the amendment.

Telecommunications ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear you will allow a bit of latitude on relevance. I was a little dismayed that you ruled the speech I was giving before out of order before you had an opportunity to hear it.

However, I will talk about Motion No. 10 and the amendment. As the member for Calgary Centre pointed out, the commission has wide-ranging powers regarding the administration of databases, information, numbering resources, et cetera, and can make any order with respect to these databases. Mr. Speaker, as you will understand, I am talking about Motion No. 10 as amended—

Telecommunications ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The Chair must make it absolutely clear that the motion has not yet been amended. There are motions in amendment which have yet to be voted on. It is incorrect to suggest that the motion has been amended.

We are talking about Motion No. 10 and the amendment. It was pointed out by the table officer that I should make that clear.

Telecommunications ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I still do not have it exactly clear. I have heard that the member for Mercier has moved a motion to amend the amendment. I am not exactly sure when the amendment will be before the House. I am wondering why we are talking about the main motion when we know an amendment is coming forward to change it. We have not decided whether the amendment will go forward. It leaves us in a bit of an awkward position, I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker.