Lost his last election, in 2008, with 29% of the vote.
Telemarketing November 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, telemarketing scams are estimated to be in the $4 billion mark.
Tough new measures have just been introduced in the House in Bill C-20. The bill will attack telemarketing scam artists. The bill will crack down on criminals by amending the misleading advertising provisions of Canada's Competition Act.
I thank the member for his question. I urge everyone in the House to take action to inform their constituents of the phone scam and the seniors busters program.
Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the hon. member's question by reminding him, and the Minister of Human Resources remarked on this recently, that the last federal budget and the main estimates already contain a great deal of information on the employment insurance account.
That said, there is no great mystery regarding the employment insurance account reserve. A reserve is necessary since it makes it possible to apply more stable premium rates throughout the economic cycle, thus making it possible to avoid increasing them in a recessionary period. In addition, the reserve makes it possible to ensure that there are sufficient funds to pay benefits when they are most necessary.
Let us recall for a moment what happened in the last recession. A $2 billion surplus in the Employment Insurance Act turned into a $6 billion deficit in two years and it was necessary to increase premiums by 30% in what was already a difficult time for job creation. That is no time to increase premiums. Consequently the government believes that it is wise to establish a reserve in the employment insurance account.
The size of the reserve varies continually. It increases and decreases depending on the rate at which benefits are paid out. The reserve is currently estimated to contain some $12 billion. However, this amount is to be reviewed and the government will soon be announcing its decision in this regard.
It should be remembered that the funds are kept in an account in anticipation of future expenditures that might be incurred under the program. The interest is credited to the employment insurance account. As indicated in the main estimates for 1997-98, interest this year totalled $345 million.
The employment insurance premiums of workers and employers make it possible to provide income protection. That is very important for persons who unexpectedly lose their jobs.
Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-203, an act to amend the agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.
This bill serves as a timely reminder of how important trade is to Canada not only in international but in domestic trade. From its very beginning, Canada has been a trading nation. Trade is the lifeblood of this country.
The well-being of Canadians depends on our ability to create and profit from competitive trading environments both at home and abroad. It was for that reason that the federal government and the provincial governments during 1993 and 1994 negotiated the agreement on internal trade.
The purpose of the agreement was to create a framework for continued co-operative efforts among governments to open up the domestic market. It established a set of rules and a work program aimed at ensuring the free flow of goods, services, people and capital and, more generally, governing trade and trade disputes between provinces and territories.
The agreement on internal trade came into effect July 1, 1995. It is no secret that there are problems with the agreement. From the start, the government recognized that the agreement was only a first step. We have accordingly consistently sought to bring other governments to agree to make it a more effective instrument for economic growth.
The Minister of Industry has at every meeting on internal trade pressed his provincial colleagues to ensure the work mandated by the agreement was done within the deadlines set. He has repeatedly challenged the other parties to the agreement to seriously consider ways to improve both its scope and the way it operates.
Recent studies and reports by business organizations such as the chamber of commerce and other observers have underlined many of the weaknesses in the agreement. They have pulled few punches in identifying the reluctance of various provincial governments to live up to the spirit or the letter of their commitments.
Most of these observers have identified the decision making process and the agreement, that is, its requirement for a consensus as a major impediment to progress.
This bill reflects an attempt to address that particular issue. The intent is understandable. The bill itself, unfortunately, is neither realistic nor practical.
As most hon. members will recall, last year we considered and passed the Agreement on Internal Trade implementation Act which this bill proposes to amend. The government introduced that legislation in 1995 because we were then and remain today firmly committed to making the agreement work.
The Agreement on Internal Trade and Implementation Act enables the federal government to meet its obligations under the agreement on internal trade. That legislation was necessary to give the government the appropriate authority and specific tools to act within its own areas of direct responsibility. However, it is most important to recognize that our Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act and the agreement on internal trade are quite different and distinct instruments.
The one is legislation by and for only one government within its own jurisdiction and powers. The other is a collectively achieved accord on how all the governments that are party to it will exercise their respective powers within their own jurisdictions. The agreement on internal trade was the outcome of a difficult process of negotiations between the federal government, the provinces and the territories during 1993 and 1994.
The authority of the agreement on internal trade does not derive from federal legislation. Rather, the authority of the agreement on internal trade derives from the commitments, obligations and undertakings which all governments accepted when they signed it. That is a fundamental point which the bill before us fails to recognize.
Simply put, no one party to the agreement on internal trade can on its own amend that agreement. That is what this bill is attempting to do.
There are therefore two main reasons why this bill is inappropriate. First, it cannot accomplish what it wishes to do, which is amend the agreement on internal trade without the agreement of all the other governments that signed it.
Second, it directly conflicts with the fundamental basis on which the agreement was negotiated, co-operation, joint action and national interest. The Canadian business sector has a legitimate expectation that the agreement on internal trade should deal effectively with internal trade barriers and impediments.
It has a legitimate expectation that the agreement should also deal with the burden of extra costs imposed by conflicting, overlapping and duplicate regulatory requirements. Ordinary Canadians have a legitimate expectation that the agreement should make it possible for them to live and work wherever they can be gainfully employed or wherever they are able to provide marketable services. All Canadians have a legitimate expectation that the agreement should make it possible for them to invest freely and conduct honest business freely throughout the country.
The agreement as it now stands does not deliver on those expectations. It is only a first step. The fact is that dealing definitively with internal trade issues is not a simple task.
It is easy to read through sections 91(a) or 121 of the Constitution and conclude that what is needed is bold and decisive action by the federal government; easy but simplistic and ultimately ineffective.
It is simplistic because unilateral federal action could not address some areas that are exclusively within provincial jurisdiction like labour mobility or local government spending on subsidies and other incentives. It is ultimately ineffective because it fails to recognize how this country works best.
Permanent, practical and effective change is best achieved when based on acceptance and co-operation among governments, not on the basis of legalism and coercion. All governments in Canada must work together to ensure that the national economy is strong, efficient and producing new products, services, jobs and growth opportunities.
It is important to that end that all governments be pressed to make the agreement on internal trade work better. The agreement belongs to all its parties. Its implementation is the responsibility of all its parties, not just the federal government.
While I cannot support this bill before us for the reasons I have outlined, I hope its message will not be lost by other governments and that the member opposite proposing this bill encourage in his own province that his own province be proactive and a leader in making sure that internal trade barriers come down.
In that regard, it is encouraging that the provincial premiers at their annual meeting in August directed their ministers and officials to complete the outstanding work of the agreement and to embark on a major expansion of the activity under it.
This government certainly can be counted on to continue to try to co-operate and work with others to strengthen and improve the agreement on internal trade. We look to others to work with us and be proactive to make things happen.
Regional Development November 6th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear that the regional development agencies are working in regions across Canada to ensure that the regions are developed. In addition, communities futures programs across this country are assisting small communities to ensure that lending and information is available. The community access program which we have been promoting for the last number of years in 1,250 communities, 9,500 schools and 1,200 public libraries makes it easier for rural communities to have access. In addition the Canada community investment program has been assisting small and rural communities.
Telecommunications Act November 4th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I meant to address the privacy section in an earlier question but unfortunately the member walked out and I was unable to ask it.
It has been said in the House before that privacy legislation is something the government is concerned with. We are now studying it, trying to get a simple, flexible privacy of information legislation. Work is being done not only with the government but with the provinces to get as many provinces onside to come up with simple legislation to recommend to the House.
When the public consultations are completed I hope hon. members will be able to add to the government's consultations on the privacy section of the legislation that will be introduced in the House in due time.
I thank the hon. member for raising it. I am sure we will be debating it in committee.
Telecommunications Act November 4th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time to debate this issue with the hon. member for Kelowna.
I want to make sure people understand that the proposed approach is not intended to restrict the entry of new players into the market or to exclude players. I understand the CRTC is doing some advance consultation now with the industry. Its objective will be to consult with the industry on what is required to have the rules participants will operate under.
This lesson has been learned in the U.S., in the U.K. and in the European Union. It is not any different from what we want to propose in Canada. If we are to have a level playing field we need the rules of the playing field and to let the industry decide what the conditions should be.
The government wants to do exactly that. It wants to make sure the rules are understood and the players can compete. Would the member for Kelowna disagree with that?
Telecommunications Act November 4th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kelowna for his remarks. I know his preparedness as industry critic is always fine tuned.
I am sure that as the industry critic he appreciates the fact Canadians are becoming more and more connected. More and more people are using the Internet and programs like Strategis which has well over 2,000 hits a day. He appreciates the importance of telecommunications.
I want to ask a number of questions. If we are to deregulate and have more people in the telecommunications business, does he believe there should be a level playing field among the participants and that new participants should be allowed to come in with a certain approval requirement, or does he believe that it should be wide open?
Telecommunications Act November 4th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, one must understand that once the act is passed there will be total consultation on this subject. Licensing is not unique to Canada. In fact, the U.S., the UK and the European Union have licensing agreements today and they apply them.
Therefore under the CRTC we would be consulting with the stakeholders and coming forth with the most effective licensing arrangement at the lowest costs. That is always an item which is close to everybody's heart, to make sure that fees are very low and only for the implementation of the licensing. Those consultations will follow and the licensing rules will be established.
Telecommunications Act November 4th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the act specifies that the controlling of the licensing is there to have an even playing field. As we change from a monopoly organization into a freer licensing factor it allows more people to get licences and have the same rules.
This is very important in this agreement. There are a number of things in this agreement which are trying to put forward an even playing field. By having an even playing field this allows other entrants into the marketplace.
Telecommunications Act November 4th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with the hon. member for London West in the discussion on Bill C-17, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act.
We have heard the legislation before the House is a necessary step toward implementing the GATS agreement on basic telecommunications and liberalizing global telecommunications. That agreement covers more than 69 countries with more than 90% of the world's $880 billion telecommunications market. It liberalizes basic telecommunications services which includes voice and data but not broadcasting.
It is a good deal for Canada. It will dramatically expand the $880 billion world market in telecommunications services, creating a demand for Canadian products and services. That will lead to more high quality jobs and economic growth.
Telecommunications are vital to Canada and have always been, ever since Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. Canadians have gone on to become leaders in the telecommunications industry.
In Canada we already have in place the world's first coast to coast commercial microwave network, the world's longest fibre optic communications network, the world's two longest competitive cellular networks, the world's first national digital microwave network, and the world's first domestic geostationary satellite telecommunications network.
It is easy to see why the telecommunications industry is an essential component of the Canadian economy. It employs some 115,000 people and accounts for 3.36% of our GDP. These are high wage jobs with average weekly earnings that are 44% higher than in all industries combined. Telecommunications is also a pivotal enabling technology that is increasingly an integral part of all types of businesses and public sector agencies.
The bill now before the House continues the liberalization of Canada's telecommunications market begun more than 10 years ago. We have already seen the benefits of that domestic liberalization for Canadians and Canadian telecommunications companies. Now we will see them in the international arena.
One of the government's key objectives during the GATS negotiations was to gain more access to foreign markets for Canadian telecommunications companies. That goal was achieved. These companies will now have more secure access to markets like the United States, the European Union, Japan, and the developing markets of Asia and Latin America.
As part of the deal Canada will make a number of changes to its domestic regime. We have made the following undertakings.
We will remove all restrictions on the use of foreign controlled global mobile satellites that provide services to Canadians.
We will end the Telesat monopoly on fixed satellite services.
We will maintain our transparent and independent regulatory and competition regimes.
We will end Teleglobe Canada's monopoly on overseas traffic and its special ownership restrictions which prohibit investment by foreign telecommunications carriers.
We will allow 100% foreign ownership and control of international submarine cable landings in Canada.
We will however continue our overall foreign investments rules to ensure that our industry remains Canadian owned and controlled.
The agreement on basic telecommunications is also an international milestone. GATS which came into effect on January 1, 1995 is the first ever multilateral set of rules for trade in services. It covers almost all the service sectors, including with this agreement basic telecommunications services. The new agreement establishes a clear set of multilateral rules in a sector that previously had no rules. Licensing processes will be governed by clear rules and disputes will be resolved in a timely manner through the WTO dispute settlement process.
The WTO dispute settlement understanding, or DSU, provides a number of mechanisms to resolve disagreements, including consultations, panels and reports. The objective of this process is to arrange either the withdrawal of the offending measure or if that is impractical, compensation to the injured third party.
This dispute settlement process provides the safeguards needed to ensure that countries respect their commitments. It is this mechanism that underpins the entire agreement. Without it no participating nation could have confidence that the terms of the agreement would be respected. And without it no telecommunications company could have the confidence necessary to make investments.
The dispute settlement process also provides Canada with a guarantee that the improved access we have won to the U.S. market is secure. Under the agreement, reciprocity tests in the FCC licensing process will be severely restrained.
Canada has one of the most open telecommunications markets in the world but the government believes strongly that an open market is not just about ownership. It requires a commitment to clear, transparent and consistently applied ground rules that ensure access and fair treatment.
With this agreement Canada has secured the commitment and the many benefits the agreement will bring to Canadians. Canadian businesses and consumers will benefit from enhanced services provided by an emerging global telephone system by establishing a transparent and predictable framework for trade and investment in telecommunications services.
The agreement will create a demand for Canadian products and services as it opens the doors to foreign markets. This will support a strong domestic communications industry and ensure that Canadians will continue to enjoy excellent communications services at competitive prices.
Given our many accomplishments in information and communications technology, there can be no doubt that Canada is poised to take full advantage of the newly expanded global markets in telecommunications services.
Technologies that are Canadian specialties are already creating whole new industries. Knowledge based industries are growing faster than any other sector in the Canadian economy.
As one of the most wired countries in the world, Canada has the communications and network infrastructure necessary to take full advantage of the information technologies such as electronic commerce.
The government consulted extensively with the telecommunications industry and with consumer groups before signing the agreement and found strong support for it. Now it will be up to Canadian industry to move forward in the global arena and take full advantage of the opportunities presented by this agreement.
In conclusion I urge the House to act quickly in passing this bill.