Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):

Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Like my leader, I have great respect for the Minister of Finance, but I am somewhat insulted and appalled today

June 8, 1993

that the Minister of Finance would not avail himself of the opportunity to stand in his place and repudiate the comments made by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Poverty who said: "Conditions in Atlantic Canada are so bad that Canadians will want to be sending food to the maritimes. It is Third World conditions there".

I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance if he agrees with this statement and if not will he repudiate that statement and that member now?

Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):

Madam Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that I have not had an opportunity to read-

Oh, oh.

Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):

Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the right hon. Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister will know that maritimers are proud people, proud of their culture and proud of the contribution they have made to Canada. In some instances they are proud of the representatives they have sent to this Parliament to serve on behalf of Canada.

Does the Prime Minister agree that there are Third World conditions in Atlantic Canada and that we must send food to the maritimes to keep them afloat? Does the Prime Minister agree with such gobbledegook from the chairman of the Subcommittee on Poverty?

Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):

Madam Speaker, I have not seen the statement to which my friend refers. I will be happy to read the complete transcript. I have heard from time to time in this House and elsewhere, for example in respect of my area of the country and Atlantic Canada and northern Ontario, many people saying that for example Third World conditions prevailed on native reserves. That in some cases turned out to be accurate. We have had to examine that and re-examine our own consciences to deal with the great problems of Indian reserves and native Canadians, aboriginal Canadians generally. I say that by way of illustration.

For decades, really since Confederation, in spite of every effort Atlantic Canada on a per capita income basis has found itself in a less privileged position than any

Government Orders

other area of Canada. There are pockets in Quebec that are worse off and there are pockets in some areas of the prairies that are worse off, but by and large Atlantic Canada has not benefited from Confederation on a per capita basis to the same extent as the rest of Canada. This is why equalization is so important. The federal government has acted through Hibernia and through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, through the unilateral allocation of a $5 billion contract to the Saint John shipyards, through the building of the fixed link From New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island, in order to provide what maritimers need: equality of opportunity and fairness of treatment.

Now let me tell my hon. friend this, and my hon. friend knows full well what the answer is. Any statement at variance with what I just said-and the greatest respect that we have for the contribution of maritimers and Atlantic Canadians generally to the success of Canada- would of course be unacceptable to me as Prime Minister and to my government. We believe that Atlantic Canada must receive the same degree of attention and concern and investment as anywhere else. Moreover, the government has multiplied its efforts to make sure this takes place, not for reasons of charity but for reasons of dignity and because Atlantic Canadians are entitled to it.

Hear, hear.

Madam Deputy Speaker:

I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Vytautas Landsbergis, leader of the opposition of the Lithuanian Seimas.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to once again speak on this bill on telecommunications and communications with respect to Motions Nos. 12,13,14,16,17,18, 20, 21, 22 and 23.

Motion No. 12 would delete the exemption power afforded to the CRTC. The power to exempt can also be met through the commission's power to forbear the right-

Madam Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. Could hon. members perhaps carry on their discussions behind the curtains? The Chair cannot hear members speaking on the far side.

The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen- Merritt.

Mr. Whittaker:

As I was saying, the power to exempt can also be met through the commission's power to forbear from regulation or through policy directives under clause 8. Without this amendment the CRTC can exempt an entire class of carriers from regulation. This is an extension of the competition mania gripping the CRTC and the government.

It is interesting to note in legislative committee the comments of the governments of Ontario and British Columbia. The province of Ontario said: "It is considered that the cabinet's power of exemption is excessive and unnecessary. The province of Ontario therefore recommends that clause 9 be deleted from the bill".

The province of British Columbia said: "This section providing the power to exempt should be deleted. The purpose of the provision can be met either through the commission's power to forbear from regulation, or if the intent is to serve broader policy aims the Governor in Council can issue policy directives under clause 8".

We can accomplish already what is set out. The suggestion is that this amendment is to delete the exemption power which is being afforded the CRTC because it is present in another area. The CRTC itself

Moving on to Motion No. 13, this amendment would ensure that any and all affected provinces have advance knowledge of any exemption of a class of carrier or other orders that would impact on their province and would ensure that the provinces would have an adequate opportunity to consult with the minister before any public announcement is made.

The government has been extremely reluctant to include any meaningful measure to ensure dialogue between the federal government and its provincial counterparts. This amendment combined with our Motion No. 8 respecting clause 7 would enhance federal-provincial consultations in an area sensitive for several provinces, specifically Saskatchewan, Quebec and Manitoba.

In committee the B.C. government stated as follows in its submission: "Provinces should be advised of a forthcoming proposed order prior to its publication in The Gazette notice. Modifications should be referred back to the province under the provincial consultation provisions".

It went on to say that during the negotiation process between the provinces and the federal government to define a memorandum of understanding regarding telecommunications problems and regulations, a proposal was considered for the establishment and functioning of a council for ministers of telecommunications.

This council was (a) to review matters of interest to both orders of government; (b) to consult on major issues that concern both orders of government in the field of telecommunications and; (c) was to consider a policy objective for future telecommunications policy development. Lastly, (d) to exchange information to facilitate future planning for the development of telecommunications policy. Unfortunately these suggestions were not adopted by the government in this piece of legislation.

The next three motions, Nos. 16, 17 and 18, deal with the government's substantial power grab in this bill. The government has the power to issue policy directives to the CRTC as well as vary a CRTC decision, rescind a decision and refer it back to the CRTC. This amendment

would eliminate the vary and rescind power, only allowing cabinet to refer back a decision to the CRTC. The Broadcast Act only allows cabinet to refer back or set aside a decision of the commission, not the more substantial powers to vary or rescind a commission decision.

Once again, the CRTC stated as follows and I quote:

- if a fence could be built around it -

That is the cabinet's power to vary CRTC decisions.

- and it were just going to be applied to minor details, that's one thing but we haven't seen any evidence that that's likely to be the case.

The B.C. government in its submission stated and I quote:

The power to vary or rescind should be reduced to allow the Governor in Council to send a decision back to the CRTC for further review. This would be similar to the power allowed for in the Broadcasting Act.

As we look further at Motion No. 20, the amendment here expands the clause to bind the minister to publish Governor in Council considerations of previous decisions of the CRTC in the Canada Gazette. In other words, the cabinet would not be able to refer back, vary or rescind CRTC decisions without some public notice.

If we look at Motion No. 21, this amendment would ensure that the provincial governments are given adequate consultation time when cabinet either issues policy directives or varies or rescinds a CRTC decision.

The next motion is Motion No. 23. This is another power that the government has afforded itself. This would ensure that if the minister is to establish technical standards, he would do so only after consulting not only the CRTC but effective carriers and other interested parties. This amendment would ensure greater transparency of process and more public accountability.

Having looked at all of these amendments, it seems to me that it makes this a fuller bill. As the member for Okanagan-Shuswap has already stated in his remarks, without some of what the people in the legislative committees and some of the witnesses have said, without the incorporation of some of their ideas and some of their suggestions to the legislation, the legislation is not only imperfect but it is far from being adequate for what is necessaiy at the present time and going further into

Government Orders

the 21st century with the massive expansion of telecommunications services and the technology of today.

I close by suggesting very strongly that the minister and the government look at some of the amendments that have been put forward by the member for Okana-gan-Shuswap and the member for Mount Royal with respect to trying to make imperfect legislation somewhat more acceptable to all areas within the telecommunications and communications area.

Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):

Madam Speaker, this series of amendments deals with power the government is taking unto itself and the transparency of the legislation or the ability of the people and the community to see what the government is doing with the power it is taking on. Not surprising, these two are closely related.

A government that is wielding unpopular power to impose unpopular decisions does not want the public to know about it. Quite often this power is wielded undemocratically and in order to further the interests of some particular group in the industry to which the government is beholden. This seems to be the basis of the present bill.

The amendments that are being suggested here are to open up the situation so that the government does not wield quite so much power or at least makes valuable use of the commission it has in place, which is the CRTC.

The provinces have been an important part of the development of the industry. They should be given some negotiating tools. That would mean that they should be allowed to make suggestions and have some tools by which they can force the government to take a look at those things.

One particular amendment to this act suggests that the provinces are not that important in this whole area. Yet if one looks into history the provinces are the most important area. The federal government is late in coming to the area of communications and intercommunications.

Parliament is supposed to be the final authority of government. In Motion No. 12 we are suggesting that the CRTC power be exempt from regulation as an entire class of the industry. This is what is being suggested in this. We are loath to give that kind of power because this

Government Orders

becomes the ultimate deregulation. The government can say: "We will exempt this whole class of the industry from any kind of regulation at all". This puts that particular class into a situation of new regulation and not necessarily doing things for the benefit of the country or of the consumer.

In Motion No. 13 my colleague from Okanagan-Shu-swap in an earlier amendment suggested that co-operation between the CRTC, the provinces and the industry should be one of the main aims of the legislation. It would appear that the government has been extremely reluctant to include meaningful measures to ensure dialogue between the federal and the provincial governments.

It would be more logical to put into the legislation a requirement for this kind of recognition of the need for consultation between these particular groups. One of the provinces suggested that a council might be an alternative to the suggestion made in this particular amendment.

Take Motions Nos. 21, 22 and 23. Motion No. 21 is approximately the same as Motion No. 14 which is the motion of exemption. Motion No. 22 would seem to delete the provincial governments as an effective part of the industry and should therefore not be included in the amendments that we would support.

It would appear that in Motion No. 20, which is relative to the power of the cabinet, my colleague has suggested that if cabinet does take power from the CRTC, which is what is being suggested by this particular act, then it should have to at least report what it is doing and make the processes of exemption, deregulation and overriding the wishes of provinces or the industry as transparent as possible.

Each time the CRTC makes a decision this particular motion would require that it be published so that the world could know what is being done in the name of the government to the communications industry.

This group of amendments, as I said earlier, tries to ameliorate the power that is being put upon cabinet and taken away to some extent from the CRTC. It makes the whole process-if it must stay the way it is and that seems likely under these kinds of circumstances-as

transparent as possible so that people of Canada within the industry will know that the Governor In Council is imposing upon them something which they do not want, which might be unpopular and might not be acceptable to them.

Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):

Madam Speaker, I wanted to participate in this debate this afternoon because I think this is an important occasion when we look at the communications industry in Canada and look at its special needs and look at the responses that have been brought forward in this legislation and the amendments that are currently grouped before the House.

How the CRTC works is always a great mystery to many Canadians. Even those within the industry struggle sometimes to sort out precisely how the process of regulations actually functions and where the powers lie. Part of what I thought was rather unique in the proposals before us this afternoon was to look at some of the things that governments do by simply not doing anything or by exempting.

I think the first element of these motions before us this afternoon that deserves some consideration is this power of exemption. It is what the government and the CRTC would do simply by exempting certain matters from regulation.

I think for many of us in looking on the surface what appears to be an attempt to bring forward competition does not always achieve its stated aim. There are some matters where realistically in the Canadian market one will get some level of competition but opening it up does not always accomplish that purpose. Very often an exemption or the use of regulations which at least on the surface appears to be some attempt to bring forward competition in the industry does not really do that.

There may be some change or some alteration in the conditions at the beginning of that process but in the long run it is inevitable that that is not really going to bring about competition. That is going to bring about injury to a certain sector of the industry itself.

I think some of the motions before us this afternoon that really deal with the power of exemption need to be examined. It may on the surface appear that the government and the CRTC are not attempting to do much more than make sure that there is competition in the field. These motions do examine and do look at some of the problems we have and deny the reality of this country

June 8, 1993

which is sometimes a little difficult to fathom because it is a very complicated piece of business.

I want to go through some of the other motions that are before us because I think they deal with what may be considered by many to be a pretty politically sensitive area. That is the way in which the federal government and its agency the CRTC deals with these matters which in many cases blend, sometimes fortunately and sometimes unfortunately, with the concerns that are brought forward by the provincial governments.

Part of what I like about the motions presented here is that an attempt is made to sort out that process. It should not necessarily be an adversarial process all the time. It ought to be a process where it is clear to the provincial governments what the intention is of the federal government and the CRTC. They should at least be given a reasonable amount of notice and provided with an opportunity before decisions are made to participate in that process. That is a power sharing concept which has been addressed in many ways over the years. Sometimes it is looked at in a constitutional sense of delegating powers almost starkly.

However the truth is that in many parts of Canada the powers will be shared. Whether anybody really wants to store these powers or not they are going to have to. The impact of a regulatory agency like the CRTC on the efforts of any of our provincial governments is sometimes very significant.

What these motions try to do is to lay out a process that is fair, reasonable and logical so that we bring together those interests of the federal government and each of our provinces to establish a process that is also fair and reasonable. This provides an opportunity for the provinces to participate in the process, share some of the obligations and at least be knowledgeable and understand this whole regulatory process at work along with, subsequently, the public at large.

Many of us are concerned-it is covered in some of these motions-about the new technology and how it changes the way the communications industry functions in Canada. Many of us have been concerned that there will always be, we hope, a publishing industry that is not uniquely Canadian in terms of the people hired who are

Government Orders

bom and raised in Canada but that looks on the needs of a country-Canada-as its primary function.

It needs to be published here. It needs to feature Canadian artists. It needs to have a Canadian perspective. It needs to address a Canadian audience. I do not want to say nasty things about American magazines or magazines that come from other parts of the world that serve their purposes quite nicely. Many of us would have an interest in them.

There is a need now to look at the technology which allows an American-made magazine to be published almost instantaneously in Canada. That technology is only one example of many where a technology of the industry is kind of leap-frogging over the regulatory nature of the government.

I think the motions in this group are attempts to try to recognize that this technology is moving very quickly. Even 10 years ago we would not have thought of all kinds of telecommunications as being a driving factor in the publications industry. However now it is. Now whole magazines and layouts can be distributed in Canada and in a technical sense printed in part in Canada and sometimes qualify as Canadian magazines. However, in fact they are about as Canadian as receiving something on a fax machine.

The motions that are before the House at the moment are an attempt to try to sort out the problems that we have encountered in those areas in a logical and rational way.

The last thing I want to try to touch on is the move, which some would say is unfair, by the federal government to change the nature of the CRTC and to establish very clearly the power of the Government of Canada.

This is a fairly substantive change. For years we have argued in this country that what we want with an agency like the CRTC is a regulatory agency which arbitrates disputes, makes regulations and comes to decisions when we need a decision-making body to arbitrate some argument in an industry.

In this bill and in some of the motions that are before us we are attempting to grapple with the relationship of a government with one of its regulatory bodies. I would argue that the changes in the bill go a bit too far for my taste. Rather than setting apart an agency to arbitrate a dispute and come forward with regulations, they allow

Government Orders

the Government of Canada to intervene too broadly to set aside and override those decisions.

That is something we have struggled with in a number of areas in this country over the years. It is sometimes difficult for a government to walk the line between setting policies, letting the policies run and allowing a third party to arbitrate disputes in that particular area. Sometimes governments will cross over the line and in my view this bill crosses over a bit too strongly. It removes some of the powers of the CRTC and changes the nature of the process substantively and not to anybody's particular benefit.

The last area I would mention in my comments on this grouping of motions is an amendment to expand the clause to bind the minister to publish Governor in Council consideration of previous decisions of the CRTC in the Canada Gazette. In other words, the cabinet would not be able to refer back or rescind CRTC decisions without some public notice.

It is absolutely amazing and quite contrary to my notion of how a democracy should function exactly how many times that kind of a process happens. Supposedly, public policy decisions are reached on matters the public has the right to be informed about, but they are not. These motions provide a process whereby the public would at least have an access point to that kind of decision-making process.

The motions which have been brought forward by my colleague are eminently supportable and this is an important bill. I regret that we have had a closure motion put on it, but the motions before us in my colleagues' names will help make this a better bill.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):

Madam Speaker, I too want to speak on Motion No. 22. It deals with clause 13 which is essentially about provincial consultation.

I think sections 8 to 15 of Bill C-62, the telecommunications bill, deal with the powers of Order in Council which essentially lay out the responsibility of the government to this bill and a number of ways the Order in Council should operate from directions, exemptions and so on.

My colleague from Mount Royal has put an amendment that would strike some of the words in clause 13 that speak to provincial consultation. Her amendment would have the federal minister notify his provincial counterparts but it would stop at notification as opposed to clause 13 in the bill in its present form which says: "and shall provide an opportunity for each of them to consult with the minister". In other words, it would build additional bureaucratic layers that might cause the federal Minister of Communications some problems. Those words could be construed as giving a silent veto of some sort to each and every provincial minister when dealing with a telecommunications issue. I think that would be counter-productive.

I applaud the minister for getting this bill to the floor of the House after nine years. It is a very good bill. Constructive amendments have been put forward that have improved it and will lead this country into the 21st century in a very dynamic way. But the whole purpose of this bill is to arrange competitive forces and talk about the roles of government, the CRTC and all the stakeholders in the telecommunications industry in this country.

If the whole spirit of the legislation is to make sure we have good order and good management in telecommunications, it would appear to me that the amendment of my colleague from Mount Royal to strike the words "and shall provide an opportunity for each of them to consult with the minister" is much more favourable and positive. Clause 13 would allow the federal Minister of Communications the assurance that having made those important decisions for the federal government for the good of the country notification of his provincial counterparts would be enough.

Notification also means there would have been a tremendous amount of consultation beforehand. It is not a Draconian phrase that says "will notify" and that is it. The federal minister knows there has to be a co-operative and co-ordinated approach with the provinces in areas of telecommunications. Therefore I think striking those words as my colleague from Mount Royal wants to do would help the federal government discharge its particular duties and responsibilities.

June 8, 1993

Government Orders

I would ask the House to support this very positive amendment. In my opinion it does not infer any veto or silent veto powers to the provincial ministers but essentially says that notification and consultation is proper. The present wording in clause 13 might infer additional powers or even a silent veto to the provincial ministers. That is not acceptable to us. That is why the amendment has been put forward by my colleague from Mount Royal.

We are very supportive of this amendment and encourage the government and the NDP to support it also.