Eric C. Lowther

[Criminal Code, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that clarification. I very much appreciate that.

I also very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-206. I had prepared a few more comments than the time will allow, so I may have to pause at a few opportunities and correct accordingly.

I am particularly interested to speak to this bill. It is important. Sometimes in this House we get so distant from the people we represent that we need to bring forward some real live people who have to live in the environment which we are trying to change.

I am reminded of an elderly lady with whom I was recently in contact in my riding. This elderly lady lived in the inner city community that is plagued with prostitution. She has been there for over 10 years. She is now afraid to go out of her house at night because of the violence outside her door that is related to street prostitution. She pleaded with me to find a way to make a change that would allow the police, who have become complacent with the issue outside her door, to find a way whereby they would have new tools that would allow them to impact the street prostitution that she has to live with.

This lady has seen the violence outside her own door. She has watched the drug trade that has come with prostitution in her community. She is aware of the health risks that have escalated because of the increase in street prostitution.

I have also met with the community association of this community. Their number one issue is street prostitution trade in their community. They recognize that it is a multifaceted problem. There is not a single silver bullet that is going to solve this.

At the same time, they are calling for elected officials and people within the community to come up with a series of strategies that will help to resolve this problem for them.

One of the major concerns that my constituents have is the age at which some of the young girls are getting caught up in this industry or in prostitution. It is one of the reasons I will be proposing a private members' bill to address this issue in the days to come.

What is ironic here is that the majority of the effort that police apply to affect street prostitution is targeted toward this very activity that this bill is trying to address, the activity of communicating for the service of prostitution, to obtain the sexual service of a prostitute.

That is where the majority of their effort goes. Yet, the result is a summary offence, a fine and often police are frustrated because they continue to see a cycle of the repeat offenders.

Changes to the act to make the possibility of an indictable offence the result of prosecution will allow for, as has been stated, the identification of the people who are involved, a record to be established and potentially a jail term.

We focused on the 10-year maximum but that is obviously not going to be the norm. That is the maximum. That should be made clear here.

This is really not a terribly new precedent. In section 212 of the Criminal Code, there are already indictable offences that apply to prostitution.

Someone inciting someone else to get involved in prostitution or someone who is living off the avails of prostitution of someone else who is under the age of 18 are already indictable offences.

We are really not breaking tremendous new ground here. We are just applying a correction and providing the police with a new tool that they really could take advantage of.

Beyond these new tools to police, I am even more concerned about some of the other benefits that flow out of this proposed bill. The member from the Conservative Party made some reference to it. I certainly concur with his disappointment that we would make this a partisan issue and not have unanimous support around this kind of initiative.

Some of the other benefits I want to speak to, particularly in my riding, are some of the young girls who are caught up in this activity who are runaways from home. Many of us do not realize that prostitutes do not stay in their same community. They are moved around to many communities across Canada. Perhaps members do not have this problem in their own riding but some of the people from their riding may be caught up in it and moved to other centres.

The ability to identify these people is critical to the police in order to track these runaways and reunite them with their families.

I have in my possession a list of 14 young prostitutes who have been killed in the last 10 years. They were identified and I will get to the identification process in a minute. I wonder how many more have just disappeared.

The greatest difficulty the police have today in these kinds of crimes and violence against these women who are involved in prostitution is the difficulty of identification.

There are often time delays when a murder is committed before the body is found and identification is that much more complex. The johns of course keep a low profile. They deal with strangers normally and there is no identification. Often they use an alias and do not use the same name twice.

In my riding there is a charity that works with street teens and girls who are on the streets to try to get them off the streets. They get to know who the girls are on the streets. The police come to that charity in order to find out who the girls are. I think it is tragic that our police are forced to go to a charity to identify these girls who have been tragic victims.

In summary, I think the key point of this simple piece of legislation is that it provides better protection for our communities, like the elderly lady I made reference to, and allows for family reunification for those who have been caught up in it and have run away. It allows for the prosecution of potentially violent johns who could impact on the girls who are caught up in this trade. It allows for improved deterrents for those who may elect to get into it and generally safer neighbourhoods.

If we cannot support a bill that serves to provide safer neighbourhoods for the people we represent then I think we really have to examine our effectiveness here.

[Criminal Records Act, November 20th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-284, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act (offences against children).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will enable children's organizations and parents to access the criminal record of persons convicted of sexual offences against children, even if later the sexual offender has received a pardon.

This limited disclosure will only be allowed to individuals who apply for a position of trust with respect to children. This bill is in response to a public concern and a large petition that was received and presented in the last Parliament. It is aimed to better protect our children from potential abuse.

I think it is quite appropriate that it be introduced in the House on this day because it is National Child Day.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Petitions, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by Calgary residents regarding the upcoming Kyoto conference on greenhouse gas emissions.

A local newspaper gathered 6,500 signatures from people who reject any tax that will drastically affect Alberta's energy industry.

The petition which I am now presenting exhibits similar concerns. It calls for a further review of this issue so that effective solutions and a better definition of cost obligations might be accomplished.

The petition urges the government not to sign any agreement until these concerns are addressed.

[Environment, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask another question on Kyoto today because we are still waiting for real answers from the government. Before I ask it, however, I am going to give the government's response, or at least the tired old comments it has made to avoid giving a real answer.

The environment minister will say what is Reform's plan, which is typical of a government that has run out of ideas. Or, the minister will say they are taking this very seriously, which is a nice thought but does not answer the question I am about to ask.

The real question Canadians want to know is will the government raise taxes to pay for the Kyoto agreement.

[The Environment, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion. What the Reform Party is demanding is what Canadians are demanding.

I have received in my office literally hundreds of signatures on petitions demanding the Liberal government not sign a legally binding treaty in Kyoto until the public has been given a chance to review the costs and impacts of such a deal.

Instead of respecting the wishes of ordinary Canadians this government is forcing a top down agenda. Canadians want real solutions to the environment, not new taxes.

Will this government publicly put forward solid solutions before signing secret contracts in Kyoto?

[The Environment, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the countdown to Kyoto is on. The Liberals are going to Japan in about 23 days and we still do not even know what the Canadian position will be.

What is so incredible here is the Liberal government has agreed to bind us to a contract, yet Canadians do not know the terms of the contract or what the impact will be.

Why does Canada have the only government that is going to Kyoto without a plan and without knowing how much it is going to cost us?

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address a few comments to the members across the floor, particularly to the last two who spoke from the government side.

I think we have to consider a couple of things with what is being put forward with this motion. We must recognize that in Canada today, through the democratic process, Quebec Canadians have elected the Bloc members who are here in the House. There is something that has caused them to get frustrated to the point where they would choose to elect the Bloc members on this side of the House.

Although I do not agree with the motion that has been put forward by the Bloc, I do recognize some of the frustration that Quebeckers feel with the current government. I was interested in hearing some of the comments that members across the way made earlier in talking about the integrity of the Liberal government.

I am reminded again of the GST promise that we have not had anything delivered on. Taxes have increased. We heard the member misquote our leader. He even said that the figures prove the Liberals' good performance. I refer to a $600 billion debt, to taxes that take us six months to pay, $45 billion in interest payments every year, 29 new spending increases in the throne speech. With all this he says they are lowering the tax burden.

They come in here and with this litany of tax and debts, they hold up the UN's announcement of how we are the favoured nation and the chosen nation.

If we are the best of a bad lot, is that the best we can do? I say that Canada has a great potential to do even more than we have, but we are limited by the government to the point that Canadians in Quebec have become so frustrated that they are electing Bloc members.

I ask the member who spoke previously when will this government realize that Canadians are asking for lower taxes and some integrity in government instead of the misguided increased tax and mismanagement that we continue to see from this government? That is the crux of the question.

If we could have integrity and proper management of the fiscal issues in this country, perhaps we would not be faced with Bloc motions such as the one we are dealing with today.

[Telecommunications Act, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, just to recap from where I left off, I was speaking to Bill C-17 and our concerns about some of the changes the bill is bringing about.

There were two changes to the broadened powers of the CRTC linked to the bill which sadly limit the benefit of the bill. We are very concerned about the extensive increase to the powers of the CRTC.

I was also beginning to address a third concern related to the bill in that it has a very short term nature. It is somewhat shortsighted in its application of a greater degree of competition within the industry.

The reason I say that is the bill continues to attempt to separate broadcasting regulation from telecommunications regulation. In Canada today we are facing an increasing convergence within technology where voice, data and broadcast are all being carried over telecommunications facilities.

It is increasingly difficult to try to separate the broadcast component from the telecommunications component because of the convergence of the technologies. As the convergence continues it will be increasingly difficult to keep these two acts separate. Therefore this piece of legislation will have a very short lifespan.

A better approach would be to allow and promote the Canadian cultural industry to produce a package of broadcast content that Canadians actually want. This would allow Canadians to select the kind of material they want to view rather than what the CRTC decides they need to see.

In this way we would be able to reduce the requirement of the Broadcast Act to control content. Then the Broadcast Act and the Telecommunications Act could be combined so that we would be controlling the transmission media rather than the actual content through a combined simplified Telecommunications Act.

Rather than delay the inevitable and hold up the industry from being able to capture some of the gains in the telecommunications market through simplified regulation, we recommend the government take a leadership role and amalgamate the Broadcast Act and the Telecommunications Act. It should harmonize and relax the regulations. It should reduce rather than expand the CRTC protectionist role.

We encourage a strong Canadian product that will compete well locally and internationally. We are not in a protectionist age. We are in a very competitive age. We need regulations which will allow Canadian telecommunications interests to compete. Broadcasters must be able to provide the products Canadians wish to see rather than the products the CRTC deems we should be able to see.

If we move in this direction we will see a much greater interest by investors to step into the telecommunications marketplace. It will also generate a substantial amount of business confidence.

In summary I will deal with some of the positive measures of the bill. We are encouraged because several of the measures are ones the Reform Party has long been calling for such as the removal of monopoly interests and allowing for Canadian interests to fully participate in international carrier services.

Another positive is the opportunity for greater competition at home when accessing long distance services within the international marketplace. This should lead to lower rates for Canadians.

Unfortunately these positives are coupled with some very significant concerns that we have. I will list them briefly. We are concerned that more power will be given to the CRTC, beyond what is called for by the legislation. We are concerned about very expansive CRTC administrative power over operational concerns, which it is not equipped to manage and never has been. We are also concerned that there is no recognition of convergence between the broadcast and the telecommunications technologies.

It is not a forward looking bill. It is a reactive bill. It is reactive to industry and technological pressure. It does not take us into the information age as the minister so clearly likes to tell us it does. It continues to attempt to strip out broadcasting and the regulations associated with broadcasting. It is getting increasingly difficult to do this.

We encourage the government to address these concerns before the next reading of the bill. Then we as a House can take what is the good part and the good start that we see in the bill, improve it, keep it on track and allow the Canadian industry to become a world leader.

If members opposite and the minister will entertain these changes to the bill and will allow the increase in the controls they are calling for within the greater powers to the CRTC to be uncoupled and removed from the bill, it will strengthen the entire package. It will also strengthen the opportunity for Canadian interests to participate fully in the global information age.

We ask the government to entertain that. I know it would be endorsed by many of members of this party and by many other members of the House.

[Telecommunications Act, November 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I will be speaking today to Bill C-17 which amends two acts, the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act.

I will preface my remarks with the encouragement I personally take that the minister recognizes the importance of this sector and has continually put it forward as a priority for Canada. I and my party may differ with the process to take us there but we certainly concur with the priority he places on it.

Prior to my time in this House I served and worked in the telecommunications sector for many years. I do concur that we have one of the finest communications infrastructures that we will find anywhere in the world. I take personal pride in being a part of having shaped that in Canada today.

Our telecommunications policy in Canada and that infrastructure has largely been born out of an inward looking approach to our telecommunications industry. We have to some degree limited ownership in the past to Canadian players and Canadian content. We have had a monopolistic approach to the development of the industry. In the past it has served Canadians and did the job and allowed for the creation of some infrastructure, but the day we are in today is certainly different from what has been in the past.

Today we are facing a greater degree of globalization and competitiveness as we have never seen before. To continue with an approach of inward looking, restrictive type policies will only serve to restrict Canadians' full participation in the global marketplace.

We have much to gain as Canadians. We have equipment and competencies in Canada that are second to none. We are well equipped right now to compete in the global marketplace, a marketplace which offers an $880 billion industry in which Canadians are eager to participate.

The global network that is evolving around the world today has changed the way we relate. Time and distance no longer are the factors they were in the past. Our world is changing.

New agreements need to be put in place to reduce the restrictions on trade and to promote investment in this critical industry if we are to capitalize on the benefits that are available for Canadians.

Speaking to this particular bill, there are some encouraging points to this bill that we have long awaited. The reduction in foreign ownership and control requirements and the lifting of some of these requirements on submarine cables, earth stations and technologies that carry long distance telecommunications services outside of Canada are good and positive signs and things we personally endorse.

The Teleglobe monopoly wind down and the Telesat monopoly divestiture are good signs. They are things that have been called for for some time. As the minister has alluded to, even the entities themselves, such as Teleglobe, embrace the opportunity to participate in the global telecommunications industry.

There are some changes required if we are to meet our trade commitments and adapt to these new realities and move away from the restrictive approach of the past. We need stronger legislative controls which are inherent in this bill around technical standards for telecommunications equipment, both that which leaves Canada and that which comes into Canada, provided those controls are applied to telecommunications equipment and not to other equipment that may not be pertinent to the telecommunications industry.

Generally we are supportive of the components within this bill that call for the elimination of the monopolies, the relaxation of foreign ownership restrictions and greater access to international markets. However we have some concerns with this bill and I would like to speak to three of those concerns. Unfortunately these concerns are of such a grave nature that the positive aspects of the bill, which the industry and this party have been calling for for some time, are almost negated by these more detrimental aspects of the bill.

The first concern is the expansive new authority which has been given to the CRTC under this legislation, brand new licensing powers over telecommunications service providers. The process around this licensing and how it is applied is undefined in the legislation. There is no mention of costs or fees which may be involved in obtaining a licence. This is another opportunity to potentially extract new revenues for the government and to further diminish the success of entrepreneurial interests in this area.

Is the process impartial? We have no way of knowing from this legislation. There is a clear indication that entities which exist in Canada today but do not require a licence will require one once this legislation is in place. There is no criteria outlined for granting of licences.

Some may think this is an over concern, but when we look at the CRTC's track record in other industries and in other areas, there is justification for concern. It has a track record of picking winners and losers. Often those picks are justified by a nebulous public interest statement rather than clear guidelines.

This significantly greater power given to the CRTC seems to be in exactly the opposite direction of what we see in the divestiture of the monopolies and the wind down of the monopolies of Teleglobe and Telesat. It is a trade off which is very unfortunate in the packaging of this particular bill.

We prefer a more clearly defined process if in fact licensing is even necessary, protecting impartiality in free market forces with less potential for abuse and political interference. It may be that none of this is intended, but define the process. Build in the safeguards so that accusations cannot be made. If that is there, it stimulates investor confidence and business development.

The second point which gives us concern about this legislation is the brand new administrative powers granted to the CRTC. In the short term the justification for these powers is targeted at the administration of the North American numbering sequence for long distance calling. On the surface it might seem reasonable but I suggest that in the past this work was actually done by industry. Does the CRTC have the skills to manage and administer an operational process such as this?

I know there is a clause in the legislation for the CRTC to be able to appoint a third party to administer this activity. Our concern is that this is an operational type of administrative duty which is new to the CRTC. I would suggest the skill sets are not there to effectively manage this and it may not be the best place to carry this on.

Even beyond that, a greater concern on this same theme is the open ended administrative power on a go forward basis granted to the CRTC by this legislation which it can impose or as the legislation itself says, prescribe for any activity related to the provision of telecommunications services by Canadian carriers.

The CRTC can further delegate powers to a chosen third party, including one created by the commission itself. This means that any area of the industry that the CRTC feels needs to have its administrative oversight can be subject to a third party management that the CRTC puts in place.

These two areas of undefined and extensive administrative power go far beyond what is required for increased participation by Canadians in the global communications marketplace.

Our concern is that what Canadians have gained in the removal of the monopolies and greater access to international markets is more than offset by the much greater controlling powers given to the regulator here at home. These are very serious precedents in the wrong direction, especially given the CRTC's track record of an expensive application process and weakly defendable subjective public interest arguments for the chosen winners and losers in the industry.

My third and final concern relates to what we believe to be the very short term nature and short sightedness of this bill. We see within this bill the continued attempt to separate broadcasting from telecommunications but the reality is that these two technologies are undergoing a convergence at a very rapid rate.

In Canada today, broadcast information through digitization is being carried by telecom carriers. As voice data and broadcast material is increasingly carried by telecom infrastructures, the attempt to partition broadcasting from telecommunications regulation will become increasingly cumbersome and increasingly difficult.

I believe that this attempt to continue to embrace the Broadcasting Act is really driven more by a desire to regulate what Canadians watch rather than any efficiencies in the actual distribution. It is again CRTC censorship regarding what Canadians will have exposure to.

However because of convergence and the attempt to strip out broadcast from telecommunications within the industry, I would suggest to the minister and to the government that is going to be effectively impossible in the days ahead as these technologies move together. There is a better approach.

[Dna Identification Act, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, many of the speakers this afternoon have addressed some of the subtleties of this bill and some of the checks and balances that are inherent in the bill and the amendments on the part of the Reform Party. This afternoon I would like to speak to the heart of this bill and the original intention that was put forward and why we are actually considering this in the first place.

In the day and age we live in there are a great number of technological advances and scientific developments. It is good that there has been some recognition of the priority of using these advancements in the area of justice and protection of our society. It is a step in the right direction.

My concern is that it is a step that may not be as effective as it could be. That is why many of my colleagues have put forward the amendments we have here today. To put it in common terms, it is kind of like buying a saw without the blade, or a car without the tires, or a hammer without the nails. It has some good intent to it but it does not go far enough.

We have entrenched already in our justice system a good system with checks and balances around how we handle fingerprints, yet that is not good enough for the party across the way. No, we have to layer on a new extensive bureaucracy that is going to limit the effectiveness of this technology, limit the effectiveness that our law enforcement agencies will have in applying this technology to protect our citizens. It is a step in the wrong direction. We could use the systems already in place to administer this technology.

I would also like to speak to the importance of this House and all the members here in recognizing the very difficult job our police forces have, people who are willing to risk their lives day in and day out to protect citizens. Often they are frustrated with the bureaucratic morass they are faced with when they attempt to bring criminals to justice. To their credit they continue to do the best they can and are constantly looking in our direction for help from this House to equip them with tools that will make them more effective in their job.

My concern is for those men and women who have chosen as their life career the protection of our society. Today we have an opportunity to give them a tool that will make them that much more effective and that much more fulfilled in their calling, yet we only go halfway. That is my concern.

There is another component to this as well besides those who protect our society. What about the victims? If this technology and applying it the right way can protect one life or prevent one assault that leaves that person scarred for life, that is justification enough to implement it in a way similar to the way we do fingerprints, to not only record who the criminal is but potentially stop that criminal from performing that act in the first place.

It is tragic that we only go halfway and do not give the justice agencies the ability to implement this to the full.

We have also seen in Canada recently a number of judgments that have years later proven to be incorrect. Had we had this technology at the time and the ability to apply it, those people would not have been incarcerated innocently for many years and guilty parties would not have gone free. That is justification enough. We must implement this measure fully, not the halfway measure we see here today.

We must protect the people of Canada. That is what they are looking for us to do. We must endorse legislation that would allow our law keepers and those involved in that line of work to do the job to the fullest.

It is too bad that this is only a halfway measure. I repeat as I close here today that it is no good to have half of the tool and not the whole tool to do the job. It is like a power saw without the blade. That is what we have here today.

I know that my constituents would rather have seen this legislation go to the point where our law keepers can use it effectively day in and day out to protect them and keep the criminals off the streets.