John Manley

[Telecommunications Industry, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, once again I want to restate the commitment the government has in this sector broadly to competition as being the best means of ensuring that we have the lowest prices, the broadest possible choice, and the greatest range of innovation.

This is a sector which perhaps of all sectors is one of the most globally competitive. It is one of the ones that is most important as a component to costs in Canadian business and therefore a competitive structure is one that commends itself to us.

At the same time of course we share the concerns that I am sure the hon. member is representing in realizing that a lot of firms are going to go through adjustment periods and perhaps in many cases will be downsizing. I believe it is a temporary phenomenon. In time the number of jobs created in the information technology sector is going to far outweigh the number of jobs that are lost in the short term adjustment period.

[Telecommunications, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member, when she thinks about it, will realize that it is better to have a process in place such as that for licensing other concerns which is transparent, open to public discussion and debate, and open to appeal, rather than the indirect method of an exemption order that was applied by the CRTC in this case. One of the reasons we referred the matter to the panel of experts was in order for them to look at the question of what the process was and whether it was an adequate process.

I think in the end the hon. member will agree that the application for licensing, if indeed we introduce the order proposed by the panel of experts, is one which will give an opportunity to everyone meeting certain qualifications which are very consistent with those that apply to cable television operators for example. It will provide funding for Canadian culture and other endeavours to be pursued by everyone interested in providing this kind of service.

[Telecommunications, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, it is a concern we also have regarding the information highway.

On numerous occasions, we have stated that we favour a competitive system. It is not very clear whether Bloc members are for or against competition or for a transparent satellite broadcasting licensing system; however, it is clear that nearly all the comments on the report presented to the government on April 6 have been positive. Probably the most significant critics came from Power Corporation, which was not very happy with the report.

[Crtc, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, again the preamble to the question misses the point of what is proposed in the issuance of a direction to the CRTC. Yes, it is the first time but the act was passed only a short time ago; it is one of the first opportunities to exercise the power. However it is very carefully circumscribed in the Broadcasting Act. Therefore it is important for us, if we make that choice, to do so in a way that complies with the act, that is transparent and that is open. This is the essence of what we are trying to accomplish with respect to the order.

As far as the regulatory efficiency act is concerned the member is entitled to engage in debate about it, but he should understand that one of the objectives of the act is to ensure that

we reduce the burden particularly on small and medium size business in order to make the economy grow.

If the Reform Party wants to increase the regulatory burden on business then let it say so.

[Crtc, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to avoid being accused of arrogance when the member's question is full of factual errors.

The reality is that we invited the panel of experts to conduct an open and transparent process. All the submissions received by the review panel were publicized with time for public response to the submissions, unlike the issue of the exemption order in the first place.

If cabinet decides that it will accept the recommendations of the review panel it would do so in a statutory and transparent way by referring such an order to the House of Commons and to the Senate for review over a period of 40 days. That is what the law provides. It is entirely open and entirely transparent. If we decide to do so, the member and other members of his party will be most welcome to make their submissions well known both on competition as well as on the future of DTH services.

[Crtc, April 24th, 1995]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I am never quite sure when the members are here or when they are not here.

The hon. member should be aware the concerns the government expressed about the order the CRTC issued last summer were precisely along the lines of the question he puts. The CRTC authorized the consortium to initiate a direct to home satellite service in Canada without issuing a licence and without any public transparency process, by issuing an exemption order which has the effect, as the hon. member should know, of creating a monopoly in this service in Canada.

If the Reform Party is in favour of a monopoly in services and opposed to a transparent licensing system then let it say so. That seems to be the implication of the question.

[Crtc, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the usual critic is not here. Perhaps she would understand the process a little better. The hon. member will know-

[Telecommunications, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, no. In fact, the government has not indicated it wants a particular decision at all. The government has the responsibility to establish policy in an important area which affects not just the delivery of program services but indeed has quite a broad effect on the information highway initiative in general.

The responsibility for making policy is that of the government. That is why governments are elected. We will consider the views of the panel of experts which will be reporting today and we will indicate what policy we believe should be followed.

The issue of who wins and who loses in these things frequently is a result of decisions of a regulatory panel, a tribunal, as in this case the CRTC. Nobody has suggested those decisions should be made elsewhere.

[Telecommunications, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, these allegations are false. I suggest to the hon. member that she could perhaps take the time to read the report; she may even agree with the recommendations made by this panel of experts.

[Direct To Home Satellites, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what part of the universe the hon. member comes from. I do not know whether she knows anything about satellites at all. She is clearly accustomed to flying in spacecrafts, though.

In endeavouring to deal with this policy in as rapid a way as possible we have conducted a process using people whose reputation is really beyond being impugned, certainly by the member.

We have appointed a panel of three former deputy ministers, all of whom served under other governments. These people's reputations have not been questioned by anyone else, certainly not by this member outside the House where she might be subject to legal action. She comes in here and tries to smear three people who are offering their services to the government.

Perhaps if the member would read the report she would find her allegations false.