Eric C. Lowther

[The Debt, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the residents of my riding of Calgary Centre are concerned about the debt load that is being left to all our children. That debt was increased by $100 billion by this government opposite. Let us never forget that.

I asked the residents in my riding: What would you do if you were the finance minister? Seventy per cent of respondents said priority one is debt retirement.

Why is this government ignoring debt retirement as a priority and is stuck like an addiction on increased spending?

[Canada Labour Code, February 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Bloc member for whom I have considerable respect. We sit on some committees together and I am always interested to hear her comments.

I have a couple of questions which I would like to pose to her, but I would like to give some background before I pose them. I come from a business environment in which I was involved in labour situations.

One particular part of the bill serves to illustrate the importance of what our party has been putting forward. That has to do with the fact that the bill allows the government to require grain vessels to be serviced at port. That is probably a good thing, in recognition of our international standing and serving the vessels which come to port. However I think it is tragic that it does not deal with getting the grain to the port.

We are in the information age. We move information around but few people actually produce a product. When we boil down all the moving of information around, where are the people who are actually producing something? It is our Canadian farmers who are doing that. Much of the information age rests on the foundation of people who are actually producing a product. That is why it is so critical those people not be subject to hindrances due to labour stoppages.

My concern is that we have a government which recognizes the need to maintain our international standing at ports for vessels but ignores or seems to put secondary the needs of Canadian farmers and Canadian producers.

The rail system knit the country together in the beginning. The rail system was a very important factor in building this nation and carrying product to port so we could participate in the international market. When Canadian farmers suffer, I suggest to the House and to those watching that all Canadians suffer. That goes to my point that the information age has been built on top of those who actually produce.

If we can do this for the international community, why can we not also specifically entertain new ideas such as final offer arbitration that our party has put forward? If it cannot be embraced by all venues, why not for venues like Canadian farmers who are so desperately in need of getting this product to market to ensure a strong Canadian economy?

[The Senate, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today the Senate will vote on whether to suspend Andrew Thompson for his lamentable attendance record. Of late, Alberta Senator Ron Ghitter has been championing Senate reform. This is most ironic coming from a Tory patronage appointee who shows up only 50% of the time.

Could Senator Ghitter's sudden conversion be an attempt to shift the focus away from his own sorry attendance record? And whatever could Senator Ghitter mean when he talks of Senate reform? For him it surely could not mean Senate elections. Why? This is the same Ron Ghitter who was first appointed in 1993 to replace Canada's first and only elected Senator, Reform's Stan Waters.

Note to Mr. Ghitter. Perhaps a first step to reforming the Senate should start with your own cushy seat. How about stepping down and giving Albertans the chance to tell you what they think of a tardy Tory Senate appointee who refers to his home province as a “backwater”.

[Louis Riel Day, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion of the hon. member of the Bloc Party. The motion calls for the 113 year old verdict on Louis Riel for being guilty of high treason to be revoked. In addition, the motion like past ones before it calls for a commemorative day each year in honour of the man Louis Riel.

Clearly this is an emotional issue for some people on both sides of the debate. Some say he was a hero who was justified in his cause. Others argue that he was largely self-serving and he went too far in pursuing a cause and a personal vision of himself. Each side quotes facts and data which serve to embellish their case and wrap them in an emotionally appealing package. This can be an emotional issue because as Canadians we want to have our own Canadian heroes. We need them.

Canadians are patriotic. We may not wear it on our sleeves like our American neighbours, but if one scratches even a bit below the surface there is a bright red, passionate Canadian heart beating. Being Canadian means something.

One of my most enjoyable duties as a new member of Parliament of this great House is to attend citizenship court in my riding. After the ceremony I embrace our new citizens and ask them what their citizenship is. I have seen tears of gratitude and hope well up in their eyes when for the first time they say “I am a Canadian”. It is a powerful moment.

Part of being a Canadian is that we demand our heroes to be real, for their stories to have integrity. We intrinsically know they must be out there, these Canadian heroes, and I believe there is a desire to know them better, to know their stories. Somehow I feel their stories have been kept from us. We do not celebrate them as we could and, I suggest, for the strength of our nation as we should. All this in spite of the millions we spend on Canadian culture and heritage.

I understand that some prefer their tax dollars be used to fund cultural products that appeal to the arts community such as a recent Canadian movie that documented a fictional tragedy, made all the more tragic by a subplot of incest and sexual perversion. Some seem to think this type of art is good for Canada. It is not my preference.

Instead, I prefer a greater focus on our heritage and culture. The money of government ministries should go to portraying the history and positive real life stories of men and women who gave so much to this country and the world. With this we would all be inspired and stand a little taller when we say “I am a Canadian”.

If Louis Riel, why not Jean de Brébeuf whose ability with languages allowed him to communicate with ease with the Huron Indians? He assimilated into their culture. Brébeuf composed the first dictionary and grammar of the Huron language. During a small pox scourge Brébeuf stayed behind helping the sick Hurons while an Iroquois war party approached. The few Huron Indians who escaped witnessed his torturous death and the story of his courage and service impacted on the lives of thousands of Huron Indians in years to come.

How about Paul de Chomedey de Maisonneuve, the founder of Ville Marie on the island of Montreal in 1642? Maisonneuve was a revered leader who governed wisely and kept order in a growing colony for 23 years. Interestingly he ordered brawlers to pay the medical bills of their victims and slanderers to praise each other in public. He sounds like a Reformer to me.

Or, more recently, in the early part of this century, Mr. Georges Vanier. At this time I would like to quote an article by Mr. George Cowley contained in a forthcoming publication Canada Portraits of Faith . He records:

Mr. George Vanier was a man that, when the first world war broke out, felt that his immediate duty was to his country. He took the leading role in recruiting and organizing a first battalion to be raised by and of French Canadians: the Royal 22nd Regiment, the Van Doos. Shortly after, he lost his right leg to a German shell. After convalescing, he refused evacuation. “I simply cannot go back to Canada,” he insisted, “while my (Canadian) comrades are still in the trenches in France”.

(After a very distinguished career, Vanier) retired from diplomatic service in 1954, hoping to continue serving Canada in “some modest capacity”. The capacity offered him in 1959, at age 71, was to become Canada's governor general, the first Quebec native so honoured.

In early 1967, Vanier's heart showed signs of weakening. His last official engagement was to address, from his wheelchair, a delegation of students from the University of Montreal on the favourite theme of his latter years: the importance of Canadian unity. Few figures in Canadian history have been better demonstrated, by words and deeds, the urgency and sacredness of this cause. “The measure of Canadian unity has been the measure of our success—if we imagine we can go our separate ways within our country, if we exaggerate our differences and revel in contentions—we will only promote our own destruction. Canada owes it to the world to remain united, for no lesson is more badly needed than the one our unity can supply: the lesson that diversity need not be the cause for conflict, but, on the contrary, may lead to richer and nobler living. I pray to God that we may go forward hand in hand”.

There are many more Canadian heroes that we all need to know more about. It would serve to strengthen our passion and resolve to stand on guard for our great nation.

I am thankful that people like Michael Clarke of Reel to Real Ministries from Chilliwack, B.C. whose publication I mentioned earlier “Portraits of Faith” provides accurate insights into the lives of many Canadian heroes. This publication will encourage us all to inspire our children.

As for Mr. Louis Riel, he was no doubt a passionate man and worked to see that the west had an independent voice within Confederation but his tactics were outside the law. We can recognize that some good was brought about through his life, as it is with every human life, but as Canadians we have a great deal of history to celebrate without having to rewrite it. The pen that rewrites history will always be driven by today's biases. It is better not to do it.

My fellow Canadians, we have much to be thankful for. In fact, we have an obligation to celebrate the strengths of this great nation.

[The Senate, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want accountable politicians. Reform is committed to improving our government system. A critical step in this process has to be a triple E Senate.

Canadians are calling for the return of some integrity and purpose to the Canadian Senate. It is unacceptable that the Senate is plagued with chronic absenteeism. It is undemocratic that the appointment process is a thinly disguised patronage plum. It is unfair to Canadians that the upper house provides little in the way of regional representation.

The Prime Minister said in 1990, when in opposition: “A reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and equitable”. Good words, but are they just empty words?

Begin today. Follow through on your words, Mr. Prime Minister. Let's get away from the triple A Senate, appointed, affluent, apathetic, and give Canadians some hope with a triple E Senate, equal, elected and effective.

[Customs Act, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the bill before the House today.

We can all take some instructive lessons from the bill. It moves us closer to having the laws of the land more adequately enforced. That is important. It was talked about this morning. That is good. It is something members of Parliament on all sides want to see. We all want to see the laws of the land being enforced and the people who have taken on the task of enforcing our laws being given the equipment to do it effectively.

Why do we want that? We want to protect the vulnerable. We want to ensure that the laws of the land serve the best interests of the country and its citizens. If we passionately care about Canada, which I know we all do, we have a strong desire to see the laws of the land upheld and officers equipped to do just that.

Parliament, as I understand it, is where the laws are shaped and the foundation of our legal system is set in place through the democratic process. I heard today some members of my own party articulating that we have lost something in Canada. The intent of the law is to protect Canadians, the vulnerable. Sometimes it is being negated by technicalities in the courts. This is tragic. It does not serve to strengthen the country. It serves to tear it down.

Many of us are concerned about it. We will continue in the days ahead to make sure the intent of law, protecting the vulnerable and the interests of the majority, will be dealt with.

There are some other side effects when technicalities overrule the intent of the law and the courts. One of the real tragedies is for the officers we are talking about to have new powers when after carrying out their duties and possibly putting their own lives at risk in difficult situations they see all their work blown away in a courtroom due to a technicality. It is greatly demotivating.

It is not just customs officers. In my own riding several constables on the police force have had every bit of their motivation and passion for their work torn out of their hearts by seeing again and again cases thrown out due to technicalities in an obviously guilty situation. To see the guilty go free is not only devastating for them. It totally shatters the intent of the law to protect the vulnerable. We put more Canadians at risk when we let the courts run the land. As has been said today, we have a legal system and not a justice system.

What does it mean for the youth of the land when they see someone who is clearly guilty, and the evidence is greatly stacked to suggest that some sort of court action needs to be taken, being treated lightly or possibly freed? Respect for the law by the young people of Canada is diminished when this happens. This is not only tragic for today, but as young people grow up with that kind of an attitude toward the laws of Canada we reap very significant negative returns. We need to instil a respect for Canadian law that has been set in place through the democratic process and the parliament in which we serve.

Probably my most important concern is that when guilty parties are treated lightly or set free, innocent, hardworking, law-abiding Canadians and Canadian families are put at risk.

These are the people I and the members of my party are very concerned about. We must make sure that we do not just have law enforcement officers and laws that are greatly diminished in their effectiveness by a legal system and not a justice system.

[Child Benefit, February 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion. I believe it is important for us to understand what this motion is attempting to do so we can speak to it intelligently.

Clearly the child tax benefit that has been in place since 1984 has had a regime which requires a 3% adjustment for inflation on an annual basis. If we do not have that 3% increase in inflation, there is no adjustment to the child tax credit.

What we have noticed with that is that there is a double whammy here actually for Canadians. First, if someone's income goes up at about the rate of inflation, 1% or 2%, they are now in a higher dollar bracket with no real additional spending power. Therefore, their child tax benefit is actually reduced. Over and above that, the child tax benefit is also not indexed with inflation and therefore the buying power of it is also lower each year. Because we do not adjust this unless the inflation rate is over 3%, there has been a slippage over the last 12 years in the value to Canadian families of the child tax benefit.

As the member opposite alluded to, the real buying power loss of those Canadian families who have participated in this over that 12 year period is about a $900 million shortfall in the benefits that are paid out under this program when it is adjusted for inflation. If it had kept in step with inflation, there would be $900 million more available for Canadian families.

The member said that we cannot afford to do this because we have to balance the budget. It is interesting that we would prioritize drawing these funds on the backs of Canadian families to balance the budget. I am suggesting there is probably quite a few other lower priorities that should be looked at first.

The key point is that there is a continual ratcheting down effect so that the benefit to Canadian families continues to drop. The winner is the federal government in that the program to which it has been committed is there for Canadian families and continues to cost it less and less even though its tax revenues continue to increase. It is one small example of the beginnings of many incremental pressures on the backs of Canadian families for some time.

I refer to the outcome of the incremental ratcheting effect of the pressures on Canadian families. It is interesting to note—and some members in the previous debate made reference to it—that the average Canadian family has suffered a $3,000 drop in real income since the current government took office in 1993. It is this subtle, tax by stealth approach that has eroded the real income of Canadian families.

For example, in 1996 Statistics Canada said that the average Canadian family spent $21,000 on a combined tax bill and only $17,000 on food, clothing and shelter. It is time to stop the kind of thinking which says let us take a dollar from a Canadian and give it to the government. Then the bureaucracy and the overhead involved in it take a portion of the dollar and some fraction of the dollar in benefit is given back to Canadians. Our approach in this party is that it is best to leave the full dollar in the pockets of the Canadian family.

There have been many comments made about some of the government's programs and the rhetoric surrounding the concern for children. I was glad the member who just spoke acknowledged that it was not children in poverty but the family. The best way to care for the children is within the family. I appreciate that comment and I concur with it. We must make sure our policies are not blind to the fact that children are dependants within. They are not entities.

The value of the family cannot be understated. The mothers and fathers are raising our next generation, our future Canadians. They are the ones who teach them right from wrong. They are the ones who pass on our culture. Within a family we learn the subtleties of human relationships and personal sacrifice and how to get along with one another. It is a critical institution. It is the foundation of our society.

I quote from the United Nations General Assembly which said some years back that the family was a natural and fundamental unit of society and was entitled to protection by society and the state. The World Congress of Families in Prague last year said that the family was the first social unit and that it held primacy over all man-made communities, economic entities and governments. It also said that policies which undermined the family eroded the bedrock of society.

We have a number of special interest groups and people clamouring for more rights. This is going on while the mom, the dad and the kids are under attack. I liken it to having a nice home. The top floor is being renovated. A crew is fixing things and changing wallpaper. This is the people clamouring for more rights, the special interest group.

Unfortunately some of the policies in our current government has a demolition crew working on the foundation. All the effort to try to renovate the house on the top floor is for not when the foundation is being torn apart.

One of the best examples I can use to illustrate this point is the fact that we have a discriminatory policy surrounding children and child care. We have had it for a number of years. We do not like to talk about discrimination in Canada. We think we are above that. Yet we have tolerated it for years when it comes to Canadian families.

Parents who wish to care for their children at home are given a subtle message by the government. There is no value in their doing that, but if they wish to have someone care for their child outside the home they will receive a full tax benefit. Or, if a third party cares for their children there is tax treatment for that. There is absolutely none for the parents who wish to care for their children at home.

It is not even a money issue to me although that is part of it. It is the subtle message to these parents, to these mothers or fathers who care for their children at home, that there is no value in what they are doing. It is absolutely the wrong message to be sending to Canadian families who are working so hard to raise our next generation.

That is why the Reform Party has long been calling for a child care deduction for all parents including those parents who care for their children at home. They should not be excluded so that the parent could make the choice. A number of studies have been conducted. One study done in Ontario quotes the fact that most parents believe that the best way to raise and care for children is with a parent at home.

With that in mind I bring forward other proposals Reform is encouraging the government to adopt in its upcoming budget. The government should consider a spousal deduction that would enable families to better support one of the spouses at home. It should begin a plan that would see any surplus applied to reducing the debt and reducing taxes.

We are very confident in our numbers. If the government were to follow our plan, by the year 2001 the average family of four in Canada could have $2,000 in its pocket which it otherwise would have had to pay in the form of tax bills to the government. That would be $2,000 in the pockets of Canadian families to take away some of the pressure they are under. We would encourage that approach.

We have other proposals. One is to take low income families right off the tax roll altogether. There is no sense in taking money from someone who is at a low income level and then trying to give them money back because government overhead takes much of that money away.

This motion is a tiny step in the right direction because it has compassion for families and children. We are not saying that it is our whole program or that it is even part of our program, but it is a step in the right direction that recognizes the importance of families and some of the inequities they have been dealt by the current government.

Without a doubt the Canadian family is part of the foundation of society. It is the commitment of the Reform Party to do everything possible in the days and years ahead in every act and bill we bring forward to strengthen and encourage the Canadian family in every way.

[Canada Co-Operatives Act, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak again to Bill C-5, the Canada Co-operatives Act.

As has been mentioned by the hon. member across the way, I concur there was a great deal of co-operation both in committee and with the co-operatives in preparing the bill. The legislation was prompted by a request from the Canadian Co-Operatives Association to the government to consider specific recommendations which would update current legislative provisions for co-operatives.

What has been an encouraging note for me in this whole process, being relatively a new member of the House, is that I was able to observe an amount of responsiveness on the part of the government to the requests of those involved in the co-operatives industry. Certainly the co-operatives themselves demonstrated some responsiveness with regard to the bill.

What I witnessed there was that the co-operative structure is built around a membership which holds the management of the co-operatives accountable. It was instructive to me and perhaps it will be to this House. The system they use there, where membership puts in place the management and then in turn holds them accountable, is something I would like to speak to a little bit here this afternoon.

The co-operative management and its members realized that their livelihood was at risk if they did not make some changes to how they raise capital and how they are able to compete against other entities in the markets in which they are involved.

Therefore, they moved ahead to seek this change to the legislation which would allow them access to capital, would allow them to change their corporate structure through amalgamation and restructuring for greater efficiencies and for the long term investment community to get involved in co-operatives as well.

It was this foresight that was driven basically by the membership and through the management that opened the door to this legislation.

The encouraging part in all of this is that the change was really driven through accountability back to the membership of the co-ops.

I think what is instructive here for us today is that in many ways there is a parallel that can be drawn between this process and what is going on in Canada today. The people of Canada are in a sense the membership that we report to.

It is interesting that the membership has been calling out for some changes here in this House and in the legislative structure that Canadians have to live within so that they too can survive for the long term and plan effectively for their future.

I am not sure that our management team here, particularly on the other side, is hearing Canadians on some of these critical issues. What I want to refer to briefly, and it ties back to the co-operators bill throughout this talk, is the fact that right now we are facing 16% youth unemployment in Canada. This creates challenges for our young people. As well the current increases to the CPP seem to almost add to the challenge that our young people have in obtaining jobs with these high payroll taxes.

We are already taxed, as we have heard in this House many times, at the highest level in the G-7 countries. Even with all of this tax, the increases in tax, the new payroll taxes and high unemployment, we still have a debt of $600 billion. We have heard that the interest is $43 billion a year.

Just taking more taxes has not kept us out of debt. In fact, we have gone into debt even as taxes have increased. It is not surprising that the membership, the people of Canada, is saying that it is time to make some management changes and change the way that the legislation allows them to plan for their future.

We have had a lengthy discussion about some of the proposals we put on the plate for changes to CPP which to date have not been heard by the party on the other side.

We listened intently to the throne speech, hoping to see what Canadians have been calling for, that is paying down the debt and tax relief.

What we saw primarily was 29 new spending initiatives on the part of this government. No, that is not what the people of Canada are asking for.

I recently commissioned a survey in my riding so that I could stay in touch with my membership or my constituents. It is consistent with what we are finding in some national polling that has been done. I will refer to it briefly.

Less than 1% of the respondents to a survey in my constituency felt that the government should embark on any kind of increased spending program. It was a very small amount. However, 78% of the respondents surveyed want debt retirement as a priority of the government that finds itself in a surplus situation.

Debt retirement was very much number one. We see this in some of the other national surveys that have come out. The remaining respondents, about 22%, wanted tax relief after debt retirement. My constituents do not feel that allowing the government to spend, spend, spend is the choice that should be made at this time. I encourage the finance minister to resist any pressures from within his caucus and party to move to an increased spending program.

My call is consistent with what we have recently heard from the premiers who came to Ottawa, to strongly encourage him to resist the Liberal temptation to fix all our problems with more government expenditure. We have had enough of that. It is not the way to solve many of these problems.

In fact, my constituents told me in the recent survey that they are diametrically opposed to the path which this government is intent on following. Eighty-two percent of my respondents, and I think this is consistent with many Canadians across the nation, felt perfectly confident that they can manage and invest their retirement funds better than the CPP investment board and supported the idea of a super RRSP which they would own and which is insulated from government manipulation.

The people in my riding are making the connection that big government results in big tax bills. Given that connection, they do not want big government.

Consistent with this we are finding that Canadians are coming to the realization, as did the members of the co-op, that in order to survive and be strong for the long term, in order to have the best possible opportunities for all Canadians as they enter into the 21st century, there has been enough of the tax and spend approach of the previous two governments. They are saying that taking more from Canadians and giving it to the government and the government taking its administrative overhead portion and then deciding who should get back the revenue is not the way to solve many of the issues facing Canada today.

They are saying that it is time for changes. The priority is, first, pay down the debt and get it under control because our interest charges on that debt are $43 billion a year. Some studies we have done tell us that interest for one year alone would pay for 4 million young people to go through a four year university degree program.

Another idea that helps us to understand how much the debt is costing at $43 billion a year is that it is enough money to fund the operation of every hospital in Canada for two years. However, at this time we are trying to sustain a health care system that is at risk.

This tax and spend approach that the co-op membership realized is the same as Canadians are realizing, that it is putting at risk our social programs. It is putting at risk the care and social security programs that we could have for less fortunate Canadians. It is putting at risk much of what we hold dear as Canadians.

In summary, there is a hopeful note in all of this, particularly with this bill. I admit that the updated Canada Cooperatives Act is a good example of how government can respond to the requirements of the private sector. It gives me some hope that it is still possible for government to respond to the voices of individual Canadians who are calling for some common sense in regard to the fiscal management issues of this nation. The Canada Cooperatives Act succeeds in modernizing Canada's co-operative movement by providing it with the financial tools it requires to compete effectively in the marketplace and remain a vital component of the Canadian economy; in many ways exactly what Canadians are asking for. At the same time, the legislation respects and retains the traditions and the integrity of the co-operative movement in Canada.

I think it is significant that the hon. member across the way gave some of the accolades to the members of the industry who participated so fully in the formulation of this legislation. I believe that is the key.

It is when we hear the people who are going to be affected by the legislation when we shape it, the likelihood of us hitting the target is much more enhanced. On that note I feel that this particular bill is one that I will remember as a positive illustration of how our Canadian government can work for the benefit of both industry and hopefully one day for the citizens of Canada.

[Division No. 64, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-17 as it enters its final stage in this House.

On the whole, I believe the bill makes some positive changes within the telecommunications industry, both within Canada and internationally.

I appreciate that within the industry committee specific changes were made to the legislation which allowed for some key improvements that were badly needed.

Before I speak to the specifics of the legislation, I believe it would be wise to paint the context within which this legislation fits. By doing this we will be better able to understand its significance.

It is no longer news to say we are in the information age or the information revolution. Alvin Toffler, in his book “The Third Wave”, 15 years ago foresaw the forces thrusting us into the information age. I would suggest that we have only just entered it.

The advances in information technologies, both in computing and telecommunications, will continue to reshape our work, our social structures and generally our lives for some years to come.

Today we have just begun to experience the impacts of the information age. We are still developing new coping and information processing norms.

Some examples are that we no longer telephone a place to reach a person. Increasingly we simply call the person and connect directly with him or her. This can happen anywhere in North America. In fact, it can happen in most places in the world.

Voice and data mailboxes have removed time dependency on conversation. Magazines have gone from 10 national magazines to hundreds, if not thousands, on news, sports and specialty issues. Television has gone from a two to five channel universe to a 200 to 500 channel universe.

The numbers of those accessing the Internet is growing exponentially. With new information comes new ideas and in turn new data information packages result. Globally we are overwhelmed with information inputs.

I heard some years back that an engineer who graduates today from a four-year undergraduate program will be required to complete his degree effectively three more times in a 30 year career just to stay current.

I also remember a statistic of some years back that if you took all the information in the world today and assembled it, 20 years from today it would amount to 3% of the total.

The opportunities in this information age and information explosion are as significant as the social pressures it produces. The information age is transforming our world. Truly, it is a global phenomenon.

The ability to move information around the globe at the speed of light is improving daily. The digitization of voice, data and raw broadcast information, combined with fibre, wireless and satellite transmission technologies, multiplexing and compression techniques are making government policy shaped in the monopolistic earlier days of telephony and broadcast increasingly obsolete.

Government protectionist policies which attempt to stop or contain information at the border are becoming increasingly ineffective. Attempts by governments such as ours to continue to separate telecommunications information from broadcast information will become increasingly ludicrous.

As telecom and broadcast technologies converge through digitization, common transmission and delivery media, the ability to separate legislation for broadcast bits of data from telecommunications bits of data in transmission and delivery facilities will become unworkable.

Thankfully, Canadian technology in telecommunications and broadcast is state of the art in the world. We have the opportunity to benefit from our product expertise like few other nations in the world. A strong, proactive, Canadian pursuit of global markets is the best line of defence for Canadian sovereignty at home when compared to the old protectionist approach.

It is within these realities that we are considering the modest changes proposed by Bill C-17. The primary purpose of Bill C-17 is to allow for the gradual winding down of the monopoly positions held by Teleglobe and Telesat. This will allow others to legally carry long distance telephone traffic into and out of Canada. Conversely, as part of the World Trade Organization and the GATT agreements, it will allow Canadian companies to more fully participate in international long distance markets.

The bill simply keeps us in the game and is more of a cautious, follow the leader approach than anything demonstrating a longer term vision.

The Reform Party has long been committed to increased competition in the telecommunications industries. We support the move to an open marketplace which is not hindered by the expense and overhead of undue government interference.

In general the legislation is improved by the committee process and the amendment today moves the industry in the right direction.

Even though 69 countries representing 90% of the current international long distance market signed on to the WTO agreement, Bill C-17 still calls for new international licensing which basically is there to protect Canadian incumbents from the new international players who may choose to provide service to Canadians.

Conversely, these international entities will also place protective licensing regimes in their own countries. Therefore we do not have true global competition but rather mutually agreeable licensing regimes between countries, usually intended to protect incumbent carriers in each country. The consumer would be better served where true reciprocity and open participation existed rather than international licensing.

Technological advancements may eclipse licensing requirements and render them obsolete within a few years anyway. Even though I believe a sunset clause, which would provide an opportunity to review the licensing regime through reciprocal international agreements some time in the future, would send a stimulating signal to Canadian industry to be competitively aggressive at home and abroad, this would in turn serve to strengthen the companies and better serve the Canadian consumer in the long run.

Unfortunately the government would not consider the inclusion of a sunset clause. Thankfully though, due to the work done in the industry committee, the licensing regime is now restricted only to international long distance carriers rather than a new licensing regime for both domestic and international service providers as called for in the original legislation.

A second component of the proposed legislation applies more to the domestic market operation than to the international long distance marketplace. The change I am referring to is the new administrative oversight powers granted to the CRTC by the legislation.

Let me make it clear that the Reform Party supports the efficient operation of the marketplace and a regulatory environment that promotes competition. Thus, with the competition in the domestic long distance market and the development of competition in the local switched network market, the allowance for some measure of third party administrative function for common network interoperability makes some sense.

For example, it makes sense that a third party administration of the North American telephone numbering program rather than the incumbent telephone companies be responsible for this activity. There will likely be other administrative entities established to address other network interoperability concerns.

The CRTC is given the power to establish and oversee these entities. Clearly the refinement to the original legislation which allows for broad new sweeping powers to the CRTC has been addressed and the administrative powers are now restricted to issues of network interoperability. Without this change we could not have supported the bill.

Even with the restricted administrative powers granted to the CRTC by the legislation, we would encourage the government to do the following. First, it should hold to its stated preference for less regulation and only entertain administration functions on behalf of the industry when the industry calls for the administrative body to take on the work.

Second, consistent with section 7 of the Telecommunications Act, it should set a management structure in place which rewards efficiency and cost effectiveness for any administrative body that is established.

Third, it should ensure as per the legislation that the costs of the administrative functions are borne by the industry and not the taxpayer. This should be done on a pay for services basis by participating industry players.

The end of the Teleglobe monopoly will not only allow competition from abroad to place downward pressure on overseas callings but will enable Canadian companies to enter the huge global marketplace, which is estimated to be worth $800 billion as compared to our $18 billion domestically. The legislation will result in the end of the Teleglobe monopoly.

The bill originally called for a domestic and international licensing regime. In committee Reform pushed hard to limit the licensing regime to international telecommunications services so we would not see the reregulation of domestic services. These changes were made in committee.

We also pushed hard to limit the blank cheque powers granted to the CRTC in the original bill. The clauses in question were amended to better define the CRTC powers so they are not expanded from the current jurisdiction but can only delegate necessary functions to facilitate the interoperation of the Canadian telecommunications network.

The bill is a step in the right direction in so far as it promotes competition and partially removes outdated foreign ownership restrictions that date back to the protectionist world of old. However, more work could be done in eliminating the foreign ownership restrictions for Canadian telecommunications carriers.

While positive to an extent the bill is not far sighted in terms of where the telecommunications industry is going but is catching up to today's realities. Increased globalization will soon cause additional pressures on our domestic telecommunications policy. It is too bad Bill C-17 does not look further ahead.

Bill C-17, though imperfect, should be passed for the benefits it brings forth, which will enable the Canadian industry to better prepare for an ever changing marketplace.

[Telecommunications Act, December 9th, 1997]

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?