Hélène Alarie

[Telecommunications Act, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I take part in this debate on Bill C-17, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act.

Telecommunications in Canada are in constant evolution. The standard communication networks are giving way to new technologies. Obviously, these new means of transmission through technological development also contribute to the globalization of trade.

In fact, state of the art communication services and technologies are leading to multiplication of trade outside the country. This new context presents a daunting challenge for Canada, that of maintaining its international competitiveness, despite the threats to its traditional industry share of investments.

The disappearance of technologies associated with natural monopolies and the restructuring of telecommunications and broadcasting activities to meet global, rather than national, requirements, calls for a reform of government policies. These must now set out new ground rules for telecommunications and broadcasting corporations.

The disappearance of the traditional boundaries between telecommunications, cable television and informatics heralds the convergence of information transmission services on a single information highway. We are witnessing the disappearance of the natural monopoly with the introduction of indirect competition, which has come about primarily through the new transmission technologies; direct competition will require complete deregulation.

In 1993, international communications traffic reached 47.7 billion minutes. This represents barely nine more minutes per person on a global scale, but 46 minutes if high income earning nations alone are considered.

The impact of this bill on the everyday lives of citizens will take the form of new job creation, since our industry is strong and can easily compete internationally.

According to the Federal Communication Commission, another advantage will be an 80% drop in international telephone rates in a few years. This bill therefore has two objectives.

The first is to bring Canadian legislation into line with Canada's international undertakings as a signatory to the February 1997 World Trade Organization's services agreement, commonly known as GATT. The agreement takes effect January 1, 1998. The bill's second objective is to bring Canadian legislation into line with the new competitive context in the telecommunications industry.

By signing the telecommunications agreement, Canada undertook to eliminate the remaining monopolies, those held by Teleglobe and Telesat. It undertook to liberalize international call handling. It undertook to completely liberalize the regime for ownership of mobile communications satellite systems and, finally, to lift the restrictions on increased foreign ownership in Teleglobe Canada. In addition, ownership of international submarine cable landings in Canada was liberalized and a reference document setting out regulatory principles for all signatory countries was approved.

With this bill, the government is giving more powers to the CRTC, as can be seen in sections 1, 2, 3 and 7. Among its many powers, the CRTC will be able to issue telecommunications licences and to suspend or revoke a licence for non-compliance with the act.

As for section 46.6, it provides for the implementation by the CRTC of a contribution mechanism, because the CRTC itself recognizes that a contribution fund must be created to provide services in regions where it is more expensive to do so. This provision gives the CRTC legal authority to do this. The fund will compensate the companies offering basic services for their actual costs. The Bloc Quebecois believes there is an urgent requirement to design a reliable and transparent mechanism for supporting companies and their customers in regions where costs are higher.

With the new powers provided the CRTC under this bill, the government is ensuring that practices in Canada are in line with those abroad so that a clear and consistent process can be created to identify the players in the industry. We hope that the CRTC will now be able to implement rules that guarantee a level playing field for everyone.

As for the Minister of Industry, he now has authority under sections 4 and 5 of this bill to issue licences for international submarine cables, and, under section 8, to certify that telecommunications equipment is in compliance with Canadian standards. It is also important to note that the government is responsible for the full implementation of Canada's telecommunications policy. It must ensure that all Quebeckers and all Canadians have equal access to telecommunications services. That is why the Minister of Industry has the power to issue directives to the CRTC.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois agrees in principle with this bill, which flows naturally from the telecommunications agreement. However, a number of questions arise: What will be the real benefits of these new initiatives for taxpayers? The Bloc Quebecois believes that hearings are urgently required to define what is meant by basic telecommunications services. What does the “affordability” of a basic service mean? For some, affordability is determined on the basis of the subscriber penetration rate, but this is not a significant measurement because it does not take the fall in the standard of living into account.

The telephone has become an essential commodity. Many people are prepared to cut elsewhere, for example in the food budget, to have this commodity. Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois thinks there is an urgent need to determine what low income customers can afford to pay for this basic telecommunications service.

Despite the liberalization of telecommunications, it is essential that these services remain affordable for everyone.

There is also another question that we consider critical: What about privacy? There is great public concern, and rightly so, about the impact of this on the release of personal information. This bill opens the door to globalization in the area of communications, and the government has still not fulfilled its commitment regarding a law to protect personal information in the private sector and at the networking level. The population is still waiting, and there may be very serious incidents if the government waits too long.

As far as privacy is concerned, both for the private and the public sector, and where linkage is concerned as well, Quebec is proud to have been both a laboratory and a model for this. I am therefore suggesting, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, that the federal government do its homework and follow the example of the Quebec legislation which protects both privacy and linkage. Particularly after passage of this bill, data linkage must be protected by legislation.

In April 1997, the parliamentary human rights committee called for adoption of legislation, but we are still waiting. On September 18, 1996, the Minister of Justice promised it by the year 2000, but we are still waiting. The Minister of Industry made a commitment to establish a legislative framework to protect personal data in his Canadian strategy for the information era, recognizing that voluntary compliance with a framework was not enough, but we are still waiting. This leaves us with the impression that the minister is bowing to the business lobby, which would like to have a more flexible framework.

Also related to privacy, it appears that the new technologies will develop telephone communications between individuals and not places. These new satellite technologies will be able to locate individuals wherever they are. Thus this becomes a control over individuals and society. We must go beyond the industrial aspect and an analysis of profitability, for it is appropriate as well to question the values our society wishes to preserve.

In the field of telecommunications, the public is often left out of the debate, given the complexity of the subject, and I can understand this. That is why the advisory committee on the information highway suggested, not all that long ago, that the federal government strike a national advisory committee on access reporting to the Ministers of Industry and Heritage and mandated to give advice on the new requirements relating to access and services deemed essential in a knowledge-based society. This advisory committee should be composed of equal numbers of members from industry and the non-profit sector.

In closing, this bill is an opening toward the liberalization of communications, something which is universally applauded. Nevertheless, the Bloc Quebecois will ensure that these questions receive clear and formal responses, as well as lead to precise, concrete and immediate actions.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Jean-Guy Chrétien of the Bloc Quebecois. Jean-Guy on this side, not Jean on that side.

Mr. Chrétien pointed out that the government does not want the president to be appointed by members of the board of directors but by the governor in council. The Bloc is therefore moving that this appointment be considered by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. We did not get the results we were hoping for when this bill was considered in committee, but we still believe in the strength of this committee and the interventions that must be made, and we think that the appointments should be subject to the approval of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food.

This brings me to Motion No. 7. The proposed amendment would create a potential distinction between the powers, duties and functions of a director who is elected and those of one who is appointed. At this point, we have little or no idea of what this amendment would mean in practical terms, and in the absence of information, we are abstaining. We will therefore vote against.

Now comes Motion No. 8; I feel like a school teacher. In Motion No. 8, the proposed amendment would set the board's quorum at two-thirds of the board members and a ratio of two elected directors to one appointed director.

If we keep looking at what it wanted at the grassroots level, namely, greater control by grain producers, farmers and people who have a major interest in this bill, we do of course support an amendment that would see a quorum of at least two-thirds of the board members, thus twice as many elected directors. This is consistent with what we want, which is more board members who are producers. This is why we support this motion.

This brings us to Motion No. 9. Under this motion, the board, in consultation with the minister, decides the terms of removal of the president of the board and implements them. The amendment substitutes the chairman of the board for the president. We therefore support this amendment, because it puts power in the hands of the board. And as we want the amendments to increase the number of farmers to be agreed to, for reasons of consistency we support this motion.

This brings us to Motion No. 10. Under this amendment, in the bylaws for board members, the governor in council should give a vote to producers producing a certain quantity of grain.

I listened with considerable interest to remarks made in this House on this motion. However, the experience I have had in my riding of having many part time farmers and realizing that they provide strong and solid support to the agricultural community makes it hard for me to oppose their participation, however limited, in the Canadian Wheat Board. If the Canadian Wheat Board is there to efficiently market a crop—I heard some colleagues say this morning that it was a bit of a monopoly, but it is not a monopoly when it is in the hands of the producers, in my opinion—it is appropriate for all these producers, even the smallest ones, if the Canadian Wheat Board is a good one, to be protected by a structure for the marketing of their crop.

Of course, when a person has thousands of hectares, this may be an amusing question, but in real life we sometimes see part time farmers or small scale farmers end up as large scale ones. They all make a valuable contribution to agriculture and we find it very hard not to consider them all, to reject them. For this reason we will vote against this motion.

This leads us to Motion no. 11. Here the amendment makes it not the minister who makes regulations in consultation with the board, but the board which makes regulations in consultation with the minister.

This is a very subtle point, but basically the power is given to the people who have to do the administration, and not the minister. I have been surprised to hear very little reference to increased federal government power over the Canadian Wheat Board where there is a possibility of some difficulty with the rules of international trade.

This amendment returns much more power to the board of directors, and moves the minister onto the back burner. This may not be what our friends across the way are after, but I believe we must attain that objective if the Canadian Wheat Board is to be properly administered. That is why we will vote for Motion No. 11.

Motion No. 12 is much like 11. Moreover, in the motions that follow there are some things that overlap. That is why I will have far less to say about the following ones, for example, Motions Nos. 14 and 15. In Motion No. 14, the proposed amendment sets a limit for the mandate of the president to be determined by the board of directors, so in Motion No. 15 this should also be the board of directors and not the governor in council. We totally agree with this motion, which reduces the federal government's power to appoint someone to this position for an indeterminate period.

You can see that the same logic has been followed from the start and there is an attempt to give more power to farmers on the Canadian Wheat Board and the board of directors, and thus to move it a little away from the control of the federal government.

As for Motion No. 16, its purpose is to have the president implement measures no later than six months following the first election of the board of directors to include the Canadian Wheat Board as a signatory to the International Code of Ethics for Canadian Business. This, I believe, is self-evident. We will therefore vote in favour of this motion.

We shall do likewise for Motion No. 19, which is a consequence, or at least a corollary, of Motion No. 16, in which it is stated, as has already been mentioned, that the code of ethics governs the conduct of Canadian businesses abroad by ensuring that they do not exploit child labour and that they apply the same labour standards elsewhere as they do here. What this means, therefore, is that the Canadian Wheat Board must act as a good corporate citizen both here and elsewhere.

Now for Motion No. 17, the amendment on the absence or inability to act of the president, I think that this is a routine matter, this is normal. We will therefore vote for there to be a replacement when required.

Finally, to address Motion No. 18, where the amendment stipulates that the board members shall act in the performance of their duties with integrity and good faith, which I do not doubt. We will therefore vote in favour of this statement of good intention.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have come to Group No. 4. I will go through the motions one by one, after which I will give an overview, because I have the feeling we will not go any further.

The first motion in Group No. 4, Motion No. 4 moved by Mr. Borotsik, proposes that 10 out of 15 directors be elected. There is a small problem, however, because this motion means that directors would be elected according to regulations made by the governor in council as set out in clauses 3.06 to 3.08. This eliminates what makes clause 3 attactive, which is that producers are appointed by other producers. There is no longer a specific reference to their being elected by producers, as was the case in clause 3.02. This reduces the significanace of the representation by producers on the board of directors.

It is the same for the amendment deleting the paragraph about the maximum term of office of directors, and this is unthinkable. We are therefore going to be voting against this motion, although we were very much in favour of greater representation by producers.

Motion No. 5 would increase the number of directors on the board from 15 to 20. For the reasons I gave earlier, we will vote in favour of this amendment, which fits in with our wish for greater representation and a greater role on the board of directors for producers.

Now, on to Motion No. 6. I am certain that, had my colleague, Mr. Chrétien, been able to debate it, he would have done a splendid job.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I will be relatively brief, given that everything is relative in this House.

A number of motions have been tabled during this debate on Bill C-4 and I do not want to anticipate, but I think the best is yet to come.

Beyond party politics, this motion reflects a global view which is, all in all, beneficial to grain producers. The motion asserts the importance of this legislation and takes us to the heart of the matter. Just looking at the reactions this afternoon, the debate on Bill C-4 will definitely be lively.

It was the same thing in committee, which led us to think that it is probably important to include Motion No. 1, which is a preamble to the act. Some may feel it is redundant, but it is better to be safe than sorry.

The number of witnesses heard is evidence of the interest in this legislation. No one in this House is opposed to the Canadian Wheat Board, but the views and the means to achieve our goals are quite different. As for Motion No. 1, which we support, we can only be in favour of trade coordination.

A coordinated marketing structure for agricultural products, both at the interprovincial and at the international level—in the case of exports—would benefit our producers. I think we all want to see more powers in the hands of grain producers, to make the decision making process more democratic.

I think that any business organization must try to achieve the best performance. And these days, businesses must account for their performance, that is to say, for their management practices. We want grain producers and the agricultural sector as a whole, which is the cornerstone of all our industries, to be as successful as possible.

In this context, I think that, if they were here today, grain producers and all those who came forward would support this motion because, as it stands, Motion No. 1 makes a lot of sense. I would not call this a partisan strategy, far from it; call it an overview of the debate on Bill C-4 and what is important to us.

[Drug Patents, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that, because according to some sources quoted in today's papers, the Minister of Health wanted to change the regulations on drug patents.

Would the Minister of Industry guarantee once again that the term of drug patents will in no way be reduced by amendments to the regulations?

[Drug Patents, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this spring the Standing Committee on Industry submitted its report on its examination of Bill C-91 on the protection of drug patents. The government is preparing its response to the report.

My question is for the Minister of Industry. Could he confirm that the government has no intention of shortening the 20 year period drug patents are protected, by amending neither the act nor the regulations, as the committee recommends in its unanimous report?

[Dairy Industry, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary concerns the importation of oil, butter and sugar mixtures.

In light of the loss of income experienced by our producers and seeing that time is of the essence, does the minister intend to do everything he can and quickly to get his colleagues to act on this issue?

[Dairy Industry, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The World Trade Organization hearings on the Canada—United States dispute on the pricing of export milk are scheduled to open on November 19.

Following his October 31 meeting with representatives from the dairy industry, can the minister assure us that every effort will be made to support the dairy industry in this major dispute?

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would like to add a comment to what my colleague just told the House.

When the Government of Quebec began working on harmonization, it was wise enough to avoid penalizing people with a tax on fuel and tobacco. Had it done so, it might have jeopardized the businesses concerned. In any case, consumers would have been very unhappy.

The fact that a sales tax is calculated only on the sales tax and not on the tax base harshly penalizes the province of Quebec. We will get back to this later today. However, we demonstrated a lot of wisdom.

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the member is right on one thing: we had a vision. We were the first ones, in 1990, to harmonize our tax without expecting anything in return. Speaking of shortfall, we feel it is only fair to receive compensation. A loss of $500 million on inputs is a lot of money for Quebec businesses.

If they want to argue over numbers, let us talk numbers. Let us talk numbers before a committee where there will an expert designated by your government. There will be an expert from Quebec and both experts will designate a third one so we can have a non-partisan committee addressing all these issues.