Eric C. Lowther

[Telecommunications Act, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking to the amendment to Motion No. 10 which deals with the addition of the public interest phraseology into the amendment.

I applaud the member from the Bloc in bringing this forward. I think it is an interesting initiative and in general I support the idea that we need to make sure these quasi-judicial bodies like the CRTC are in fact operating in the public interest.

I think she has some legitimate concerns to question whether or not they actually are. I am not sure that this is the best way to deal with that concern, but I do applaud her for bringing it forward.

Why I share her concern regarding whether the CRTC is actually operating in the public interest is not so much really with the telecommunications side, but I certainly do share her concern in general when it applies to the CRTC on the broadcast side.

For example, we have a decision coming out of the CRTC in the next week or two where again they will be ruling on the ability for single faith channels to be broadcast within Canada. Whereas just recently they did approve a Playboy channel to be broadcast in Canada, they are eliminating single faith channels from being broadcast in Canada, continually turning down that decision.

It will be very interesting to see if the CRTC will actually allow those Canadians who are pursuing this kind of broadcast channel to be allowed to have access to that.

This is the kind of accountability that I believe the member for St. Albert was calling for, accountable back to the people.

To say that we are always operating in the public interest, as per the member's motion here, I think that can be demonstrated to not always be the case by these quasi-judicial bodies. People who are part of the public need to have some input into the process to say what is in their best interest. It seems to be that there has been some disconnection from the public interest as expressed by the public and what is actually happening here. I hope that we see some change from the CRTC particularly having to do with the broadcast side of it.

Yes, we do need to make sure that the public interest is part of the CRTC's mandate. I concur with the member from the other side though that by adding the public interest in this clause you would tend to want to add the public interest to every single clause in the entire act. I would think it should be implied that the CRTC is acting in the public interest throughout the act. To put it in one section and not have it in all the others tends to suggest that the other sections are not acting in the public interest.

I would suggest that maybe this is not the best way to approach it but I do concur with the member's intent. Beyond just adding the words “public interest”, what we really need and for a long time what this party has been calling for is a complete review of how the CRTC exercises its decisions that are in the public interest. There is some substantial breakdown there that needs to be dealt with on behalf of Canadians.

That is what we are primarily calling for in relation to this motion on the floor today. Again, I applaud the member but I think this might not be the best approach. We would call for a comprehensive review of the CRTC's mandate.

[Telecommunications Act, December 9th, 1997]

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

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

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

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

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

(1) The Commission may administer

(a) numbering resources—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Telecommunications Act, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important circumstance in the list of amendments the hon. member has brought forward. It is important for a couple of key reasons.

The first is that we need to ask ourselves a question as we did in committee concerning the issue of international licensing as opposed to domestic licensing. What really are we trying to accomplish and what is the cost benefit of doing so?

As has been mentioned previously by the hon. member on the other side, numerous presenters at committee expressed concern around adding a new layer of domestic licensing to telecommunications service providers. Yet we could find no clear justification for adding this new level of licensing.

Today under the CRTC, the Telecommunications Act and the Competition Act, there are already vehicles through which the government can deal with any problems in the industry. These vehicles that currently exist if exercised expediently are all that are needed. To layer a new level of licensing on to business interests in the telecommunications industry which are currently not under a licensing regime is just an expansion of a bureaucracy for no clear benefit. That is what became so evident in the committee.

I believe that is why we stand against these particular amendments put forward by the Bloc member.

We always have to ask and we are going to continue to ask the question, whenever there is some new overlay of regulation or licensing and the cost that is involved in adding the new licensing or administrative overlay, what is the benefit derived for the consumer. Somebody is going to have to pay for this licensing process. Someone is going to have to administer it.

Ultimately we know who that someone is. It is the taxpayer. It may be passed on to industry, but industry just flows that back to the consumer. One way or the other the taxpayer or the consumer funds these new regulatory regimes that are layered on top of the ones that are already there.

That was my concern in committee and it remains my concern. Unless we can demonstrate a very clear payback to the consumer for having these new licensing powers or licensing restrictions placed on players who currently do not have them and have not had them, and there have been no significant problems that cannot be dealt with through existing legislation, then we should not entertain adding a new level of bureaucracy to what is already there.

Even at the international level there is some question as to how long the need for licensing will be there if we are truly moving to global competition. We feel it is a valid question to examine how long we will need the licensing regime at the international level.

In general, my thrust is to let us make the current restrictions and legislation which is there today and surrounds this industry effective, instead of adding on new layers of bureaucracy to try to add new restrictions to the industry. It is already doing quite well without it.

[Telecommunications Act, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask at this time that we seek unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the Reform motions on the order paper today.

After consultation with the government we feel it would be in order for us to withdraw our motions at this time.

[Avalanche, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respect to the families of Aimee Beddoe, David Ferrel, Mike Patry and Alexander Velev.

These Calgary youths tragically died in an avalanche while skiing in the Kananaskis over the weekend. The four teens were students at Western Canada High School in Calgary and were deeply loved by their friends and families.

Aimee, David, Mike and Alexander demonstrated a great love of life and were all active in sports and outdoor activities.

As many of us in this House are parents, I know our hearts go out to their families in this time of loss. Their children's lives were a great gift and blessing to many. They can take comfort from the joy their children gave to them.

These families can be assured that our thoughts and prayers are with them in hope that the families of Aimee, David, Mike and Alexander might find peace in this difficult time.

[Canada Co-Operatives Act, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking to the bill in general and certainly to the amendment.

I have been encouraged by the whole process surrounding this bill, particularly by the way it was handled by the committee and the way the government listened to the concerns of the co-op members. I think the co-op sets a good example for all of us. The whole co-op structure is based on accountability to the members. That is part of the reason why the whole process works so well.

The amendments proposed to the bill and the total bill really were birthed out of concerns of the co-op management and members. The co-operatives recognized there was a need for change. They are in an increasingly competitive environment. They realized if they did not make some changes their viability was at risk for the long term.

They realized they were competing against larger entities with smaller management hierarchies and less bureaucracy. They realized they had to be more customer focused and more efficient. They realized that some investment dollars were needed in order to sustain them for the long term. I thought it was interesting that this realization caused them to actually bring forward the legislation in this bill, even to the point in our committee of fine tuning some of the amendments that we have here, to make sure there was not one thing that was not addressed.

These amendments here today were not something that the government so much brought forward as the members of the co-operatives themselves did. The management of the co-operatives brought them on themselves. This shows the accountability back to the members and that the government is listening to the needs of this industry and this group worked in this case. It was quite encouraging to me.

What I would like to see as a take-out of this whole endeavour is the lessons learned on the positive side. I encourage the government also to deal with some of the realities that Canadians are faced with and look at the model in this bill: a responsiveness to membership, a responsiveness to the people that put the directors of the co-operatives in place and the people that put us here.

I have concerns as I look at this bill and I compare it to what I see us in the House and the government doing. We talk about the fact that there is no deficit outstanding, we are hoping, yet we are sitting on a $600 billion debt and we see interest rates threatening to creep up on us. We are sitting on an interest rate time bomb. We pay $45 billion a year in interest. I was doing a calculation on this and that is enough money to put four million young people through a four year degree program at university. That is a lot of money and we pay that in interest every year.

These are all realities Canadians have to face. When I look at the co-operative situation and I look at what is happening in our government, I do not see the same kind of responsiveness here in the House of Commons. When I look at the throne speech with 29 new spending initiatives and we have that reality as far as the debt and the interest goes, it just does not line up for me and I do not think it lines up for a lot of Canadians.

Canadians are looking for us to deal with the realities that are needed in Canada today. Less government, not more. The co-operatives have demonstrated this in the management of their own operations. We do not seem to be able to do it in this House. We need to consider allowing Canadians to be heard the same way that members of the co-operatives were, to allow this government to encourage an environment where Canadians can plan for their future like the co-operatives have planned for theirs.

The problem is that we do not seem to be listening here and a lot of Canadians are pretty frustrated about that. What we get instead is what I have heard on and off in the debate in this House in the last couple of days and actually over the last several weeks.

There is a plan for the CPP that is going to bail it out they say, but it has been there for 30 years and 30 years of government management has left a $560 billion unfunded liability. The money that goes in at one end pays for those who receive it at the other. There really is no equity there to draw from, even though we have been paying into it for 30 years. There was a study done in Maclean's not long ago that 66% of Canadians do not believe it will be there for them when it comes time for them to collect. This is pretty tragic.

Instead of listening to some of the proposals we put forward and some of the other strategies that are out there in the world that have bailed out government funded pension plans and that are working, the government's answer is to increase the premiums by 73%. It will keep grinding the old engine hoping it is going to work one day. The fact is that it has not for 30 years and it is very unlikely it will go forward. Ten percent of every Canadian's paycheque is going to be going into a plan that has not worked.

What is equally tragic about this whole thing is that we are not listening. The government is not listening to the people, especially when we consider that youth unemployment is sitting at 16.5% to 17%. Here is our answer. We are going to hike up payroll taxes. We are going to hike up CPP. It is a mistake on the government's part. It will hurt the youth of this nation more than we can fully comprehend. They are the people who are keen to get out and apply their skills and energy. If that is cut off it will have negative reverberations in our country for years to come. The hope of our youth is being crushed with high payroll taxes.

In hoping to make us feel better about it, the government introduced a CPP investment board to manage the funds. Many of us have seen the results of government appointed boards. It is more of a concern than a consolation.

What Canadians really want is something like the co-operatives are doing. They want the ability to manage their own affairs. They want to manage their own money. We should remember that it is, in fact, their money.

They could do it successfully. Many people have their own investment plans, their own pension plans, which are available in other countries. Those plans have worked three to four times better than what we are seeing in government-run plans.

This would give Canadians a chance to plan for their future, just like the co-operatives are attempting to do. They are planning for their future in a very competitive marketplace.

There is another thing the co-operatives did with this very interesting bill and these amendments. They looked for a way to protect themselves and to survive for the long term. That seems to be very wise in this day and age. Canadians want to have the same opportunity to protect themselves and to establish security for their families in the long term.

It is incumbent upon government, particularly the Government of Canada, to do all it can to move that along. However, the government is holding it up. It continually says that is what it wants to do, but we are over-governed, we have a debt and interest problem, we have the highest tax to GDP ratio of all the G-7 countries. Twenty-nine new spending initiatives were announced, even in the face of that. CPP has been increased 10%. We have another government appointed board.

Those are not the answers that Canadians are looking for. We do not need more bricks on the load, we need relief, especially in the face of youth unemployment at 16.5% and using the EI surplus to pay down the debt and balance the budget. These are not the answers.

There is some hope. The hope is that the government was able to listen to the co-operatives and is responding to the needs of the co-operatives. That tells me that there is a ray of hope here. When government is ready to listen and frees itself from political patronage and influence and concerns itself with where Canadians are at, there is hope. The co-operatives are allowed to plan for their future.

We support this bill, not only for what it does for the co-operatives but for what it represents. It represents the kind of approach to government that is responsive to the voters and will bring about resolutions and improvements to serve the needs of Canadians.

Let us take this simple bill and use it as an example—

[The Environment, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, delay after delay.

My question now is on behalf of the people that have been shut out of this insane process. Two weeks ago the provinces agreed in principle to emission deadlines by the year 2010, but last week the federal government said it had unilaterally changed that to 2007.

Why has the government reneged on this deal with the provinces? How can it possibly come up with a nationally agreed to plan in the next 48 hours? This is too incredible.

Will the Minister of the Environment really get on that plane without getting provincial agreement first?

[The Environment, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we just have to keep going. This Liberal saga on Kyoto just continues. The Liberals have painted themselves into a corner. For months they have been saying they would sign a deal in Kyoto, before they had decided what Canada's position would be.

They agreed to a deal before they had seen it and worse still, before they had even come up with their own policy. Now they have fallen victim to those rash promises. They are boarding planes and they are still writing their position.

How can this minister board the plane for Kyoto? How can she sign a deal when she does not even know what the national position is?

[People's Tax Form Act, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the hon. member of the New Democratic Party for giving some consideration to the bill before us and for being open to more accountability in the House. It is certainly one of the things we agree is very desperately needed today.

I also appreciate the opportunity to represent my constituents and my party. I am proud to stand in the House to speak in favour of Bill C-214, the people's tax form.

As its title explains, the people's tax form would allow taxpayers to give a sense to the government of their views on levels and priorities for the expenditure of tax revenues and to provide parliamentary reviews of the results. This is truly direct input, a people type of bill, a bill where real Canadians would have some input into the way their tax dollars are being spent.

It is important for us to remember that Canadians are actually paying the ultimate bill. The bill we are discussing and debating is a bill of fiscal responsibility. It would encourage the government to better priorize and account for where it spends the taxes it collects.

The bill would not frighten any responsible democratic government but it does seem to frighten the Liberals. They see it as a potential hindrance to their agenda if people do not agree with their priorities. It frightens them because it would let taxpayers put priorities on how governments spend taxpayers' money. It frightens them because the Liberals are, I am afraid, increasingly out of touch with real Canadians and with what they want their taxes going toward. The Liberal priorities and values are not lining up with those of ordinary Canadians.

Instead of funding Liberal projects, this bill would give taxpayers more say and some choice in how their money is spent. That is something the people want but the Liberals do not. This bill concerned the Liberals so much that they refused to allow a vote on it in this House. Further, they will not even let it be discussed. A few moments ago they refused to give unanimous consent of the House to refer this bill to committee for further study. What they are saying is no accountability and democratic input. It is not allowed.

Why is it that the finance minister and the Standing Committee on Finance travel around the country at this time of year under the guise of prebudget consultation while refusing to consult ordinary Canadians at a time when they are filling out their taxes? Apparently the minister is more interested in controlled input from a select few and racking up his air miles than getting broad based input from ordinary Canadians.

Paying lip service to consultation by going through the motions at staged committee meetings does not allow the priorities of the whole Canadian public to be heard. Canadians are increasingly and understandably jaded about the wisdom of their elected representatives spending their dollars.

Thirty years of government overspending has saddled us with $600 billion of debt, the highest taxes in the G-7 countries, with interest payments that are eating the heart out of our social programs. Given this track record, the status quo on tax and spend governments from on high is not acceptable. In fact it is destructive.

Canadians want to have input into the governance of their country. It is that desire that has put Reformers in this House. This is the message that Reform has consistently promoted since its inception over 10 years ago. This is the message we will continue to promote.

This bill furthers this vision. I commend my hon. colleague from Yorkton—Melville for his initiative and effort in putting it forward. I was very interested to hear the results that he received back from his constituents when he asked them to fill out the people's tax form. It is clear that his constituents want to retain public security for those who need it most. Old age security, health care, justice and even the RCMP are their priorities.

Reformers are true Canadians who care, despite how others in this House want to misrepresent them.

My colleague's constituents also made it abundantly clear that they do not want their tax dollars going to pet Liberal projects like multiculturalism and special interest group funding. They want government to encourage but not subsidize business initiatives. They know that Canadian industry is strong enough to stand on its own and that tax breaks to consumers will do more to strengthen business than making them dependent on subsidies.

The people of Canada want Ottawa to stop telling them what is best for them. They are tired of a Liberal position that it is not the people's job to think but to obey.

This bill provides an effective vehicle for government to better serve the people. I ask my hon. colleagues in this House to support the people who have put them here and to support this initiative. It is with this in mind that I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to make this bill a votable item.

[Canadians, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I understand it is customary that the person who moves the motion normally has the opportunity to sum up. I request that the person who moved the motion would be next up when the member speaking concludes, which I hope will be fairly soon, looking at the clock.