What were the names of the funds deregistered from the Immigrant

Investor program of the Department of Employment and

Immigration, who were the principals behind each fund and what

were the reasons for each deregistration?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this series of resolutions to make some comments in support of the resolutions by my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap.

These amendments are aimed at making this bill a little more consumer friendly and a little more Canadian friendly. What needs to be done with this bill is to strengthen the relationship between the consumer, the provinces and the industry. A good portion of this industry has been developed by the provinces and is part of the provincial structure. It therefore becomes very important that the provinces and the consumers be involved and that we make this industry as Canadian friendly as possible. Instead, this movement toward competitiveness makes it probably more American friendly.

This series of amendments gives some vision to the industry. It puts in place some kind of vision of what the industry should be doing. What is more logical than the

Government Orders

four or five amendments that have been placed here? For instance, what can be more logical than making one of the most important aims of the industry to be, as the motion states:

"(b) to enhance the expression and communication of Canada's cultural identity."

What would be more logical than making that the basic aim of the industry? What can be more logical than maintaining an affordable system?

One of the real concerns all across the country has been that the whole of the communications industry is gradually becoming the area of those people who can afford it. I have a daughter, for instance, who told me the other day: "I am just not going to be able to afford a telephone very much longer".

This is not an unrealistic approach for a lot of people. When you are having trouble putting food on the table then communications, if they become expensive, become extra. That again is one of the amendments which my colleague has put forward.

Third, what can be more logical than having consultation with the provinces? After all, the basic industry has been developed by the provinces. In fact, as far as telephones are concerned I was a member of a telephone company that was a co-operative in Saskatchewan 45 or 50 years ago. It became part of the Saskatchewan telephone system and is now being threatened to some extent in the direction it is going in being available to people in my community.

Again, what can be more logical than to be sure by putting it into legislation that the provinces, the industry and the government consult before they take directions that are harmful to Canada generally and to the consumer specifically?

What can be more logical than to support and to encourage innovation and to make that a central point as far as the development of the industry is concerned? All of these are very specific and very small directions which would strengthen the bill that, as my colleagues suggested, has been around for 90 years.

I am very surprised that the minister said we in this corner are filibustering it when for nine years it could have been passed. The filibustering must have gone on within his caucus. That is where it has been held up for the last nine years.

June 8, 1993

Government Orders

Now when it is brought forward and we get a little debate on it, he shuts it down. The positions that Canadians right across the country have held for many years and have presented to us as their representatives should be put in. We would not have any trouble supporting this bill if the minister had taken the time to strengthen it in the directions which are indicated even in these first five motions.

There are five motions in this group aimed at making the bill more consumer friendly, more Canadian friendly. That is the direction we should be looking. It is the direction that we thought the government was looking but obviously it did not take the time to make the kinds of changes which would have made it Canadian and consumer friendly.

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. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it would appear that the term or the idea of public interest is a forgotten concept, particularly with governments that are rushing untrammelled to be competitive or to appear to be competitive. Consequently these two amendments are an attempt to allow the CRTC to take public interest into consideration when it decides whether or not it is going to regulate the industry or portions of the industry.

The first amendment would add that the public interest is a crucial factor in the decision not to regulate sections of the industry. The second amendment would allow the CRTC flexibility in choosing when not to forbear from regulating therefore giving further protection to the public interest. In both cases the basis under which decisions to regulate are made will be whether or not it is in the public interest to do so.

We all recognize that a considerable number of situations arise where competition is detrimental to the best operation of the industry. I can give a very simple example. If there is no requirement or regulation to provide communications to certain areas which are not profitable then there is a tendency for a government to say: "Do not bother".

We have grown up in a large country with fairly costly communications problems believing that every area of the country should have the right to adequate communications. Competition would not provide this kind of communication. Therefore it is required to establish some sort of regulations which do put into place a structure which enforces to some extent regulations to say that the industry must provide this communication over the whole of the country rather than only in those areas that are profitable.

Government Orders

That is the kind of public interest that needs to be taken into consideration and that is what these two amendments are intended to do. They will give the CRTC the right to make a choice to say that in the public interest regulation should be put into place or regulation should not be put into place. That is the basis of these two which would strengthen the ability of the CRTC to rule in the public interest.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents.

The Prime Minister indicated in October 1992 the intention of the government to settle the claim of

Routine Proceedings

redress to the mutual satisfaction of both the government and the Ukrainian community.

These petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to act on the unanimous motion of the House of Commons of September 27,1991 and settle the acknowledgement and redress issue to the satisfaction of the Ukrainian Canadian community and the government.