1993-04-19

Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should contract an independent non-government agency to review all salaries, allowances, benefits, and pensions of members of Parliament and senators and make recommendations on these to the House.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak to Motion No. 660 today. It has been a number of years since the compensation of members of Parliament-the salaries, pensions, and tax free benefits-has been reviewed. I feel very strongly about this.
When I was first elected to this House in 1984 I was unaware of how the pensions were calculated for members of Parliament and it truly shocked me that they did not parallel those in private enterprise.
In 1952 under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act we started laying down the rules and guidelines with regard to pensions for MPs and how these were applicable. Since 1981 members of the House of Commons have contributed 10 per cent of their sessional indemnity plus 1 per cent, making a total of 11 per cent, into the pension fund. The House of Commons contributes 11 per cent.
A member of Parliament must serve six years in order to be in line for a pension after he or she retires or is defeated. Sometimes members of Parliament can be extremely young after six years of service. I feel very
strongly that our pensions should be reviewed again taking a look at private enterprise. Any pension that is due to an elected member of Parliament should come after a certain age, be it 55 years of age plus the number of years of service equalling a certain number.
Some people are age 30 when they come here and after working very hard choose to retire after six years. Therefore they are age 36 when they take a pension. That does not seem right to me and I am very pleased that this motion has come forward so I can express my concerns and the concerns of the constituents in Calgary Southwest.
Four or five years ago I wrote a letter to the Speaker- not to you, Sir, but a previous Speaker-requesting that an investigation and study be done in this particular area. I wrote a letter to the Board of Internal Economy. I even wrote a letter to some of my colleagues in the House in all parties stating that I felt it was time that members' pensions be looked at.
Are members of Parliament contributing enough or not enough? Should the House contribute an equal amount? Should we be able to take a pension after six years of service no matter what our age may be? Should members of Parliament who go on to another career in the Public Service be allowed to double dip? That means they could collect a pension from the House of Commons and be employed by the Public Service, getting a wage and a pension at the same time. These are all areas that need to be studied very carefully.
I did not get very far. I decided I would table a private member's motion which I did a year ago last March. As all of us are well aware it sometimes takes a period of time for these motions to get drawn.
I did not give up there. I spoke to the President of the Treasury Board who is the minister responsible for members' pensions and the legislation. I encouraged him to have a total review. I also worked with many of my colleagues throughout the House stating we simply had to come into line with private enterprise.

April 19, 1993
Private Members' Business
After two or three years of hounding the President of the Treasury Board he announced the first week of February that he would appoint an independent actuarial company to examine the entire MPs compensation package. This is good. The total package will be reviewed, not only the salaries, but also our allowances, any benefits, any perks, any contributions to the pension fund and the tax-free portion.
Today MPs have a basic salary of $64,800 which is earned income and on which we pay tax. Also, members of Parliament receive a tax-free per annum of about $21,400. This is non-taxable and helps many of the people in the House with their expenses.
A lot of things people right across Canada do not understand is that when many of us have to go from one building to another such as over to external affairs, to fisheries and oceans and indeed over to visit the people at Environment Canada, we take a cab and that cost comes out of our pocket. There are many parking expenditures. We attend many day and evening functions. Some we are obligated to attend and some we do quite of our own volition. We have many expenses which are not really listed and it is very difficult for people across the country to understand.
I could honestly say that just this past 10 days, the two weeks we were home in our ridings, it cost me between $500 and $600 for parking tickets, gasoline and the various functions that I attended. This comes out of the tax free portion of our compensation package.
It can be argued that maybe the tax-free portion should be dismissed and our salary increase and we be compensated on a receipt presented for all our expenses. That may be a way but before we ever decide, we would have to take a look at how much the administration of such a system would cost the taxpayers.
There is an average throughout the country of how much MPs spend with regard to making things available within their riding, being accessible and attending certain functions. I am very pleased the President of the Treasury Board went ahead and said we would review the whole package.
As I said earlier, the basic salary today is $64,800 which is taxable. We will review the non-taxable portion, which is $21,400. We will review the amount of money which each member of Parliament contributes to the pension fund. We will review how much the government puts into
the pension fund. We will review whether there should be double dipping and at what age a member may draw his pension. All these are very important, there is no doubt about it, but we have to come in line with private enterprise so that everybody across this country is treated equally and fairly.
There has been a lot in the papers over the last number of years concerning the pensions of members of Parliament. According to them, everyone is going to get the maximum amount. That is not true. Over 50 per cent of the members will not collect a pension because they will not have sat the six years required. Second, of the 50 per cent of the members left, probably around 5 per cent will collect the maximum, which means they will have served for 15 years or more. We are looking at a very small portion of members of Parliament who will serve the full length of time required and receive a full pension.
Having checked the pension fund last week for members of Parliament I found it was in a surplus position of about $30 million. It takes the members of Parliament working today to create the funds for the members of Parliament who retired yesterday or before.
I am very pleased after three, four or five years of working with my colleagues and working to get the President of the Treasury Board to review our compensation package and put it out to a non-government actuarial firm. Of course, the recommendations would have to come back to the House so we could have a full debate on that specific issue.
I thank my colleague from South Shore who seconded the motion today. I know he has been an active person concerning the fair treatment of pensions.


An hon. member:: He is a good Canadian.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Yes, he is a good Canadian and he represents his constituents in Nova Scotia extremely well.
April 19, 1993

Private Members' Business
Whether the recommendations that come back to the House say the salaries should go up and the pensions go down, or our contributions should be less than 7 per cent, will have to be reviewed.
The other part of it is indexation. Pensions are not indexed until the members receiving them reach the magic age of 60 and then they are indexed according to the CPI that has been involved since the time of retirement.
While I recognize that there is a lot of controversy, I do want the people of Calgary Southwest to know that this is now on the table and will be reviewed. Once the statistics and the criteria are set down, we will understand that pensions have to come in line with private enterprise and that is what we are hoping for.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate this morning, on our first day back in Parliament.

I must say that when I first saw the motion on the Order Paper I wondered why we were debating it because I thought it had already been decided by the President of the Treasury Board. If it has been decided, why is it necessary to adopt a motion that has already been decided? Nevertheless, it makes for interesting conversation in the House for no other reason than it states again our commitment to doing what the motion says.
The member for Calgary Southwest said some moments ago that the President of the Treasury Board had agreed to establishing a commission to review the salaries and benefits of members of Parliament. To this date I have no knowledge of who is to sit on that commission. Perhaps the members have been appointed. If they have I do not recall a press release or a media advisory announcing that members of the commission had been appointed.
Perhaps the purpose behind this motion is really to incite the President of the Treasury Board to do that which he promised; not to just announce the commission would exist, but to actually appoint the commission and get it going.
I am not trying to put words in the mouth of the hon. member across the way. Perhaps she is trying to push the minister along to get him to appoint that commission. That is a good idea and I have no difficulty with that. I am not ashamed of the salary I make as an MP and neither is the hon. member from Calgary. She is a very hard-working member of Parliament, as are the vast majority of MPs in the House of Commons.
In terms of accountability, it is not a bad idea to get an independent commission to review it. I would guess that at this point whatever commission is appointed will likely recommend that MPs' salaries be increased but then we will not do it. That is usually what happens. Every time one of these commissions has been appointed, the recommendation has been to increase MPs' salaries when people thought that the recommendation would be to decrease them. Because the recommendation is to increase salaries no one dares do it particularly because economic times are tough and nothing happens. So be it. At the very least we will be able to confirm that what we are doing and the amount of salary we are getting for doing our jobs here is appropriate if that is what the commission decides. Now we are getting into the business of pensions and so on.
There is an organization, which really is a business calling itself the National Citizens' Coalition. It has nothing to do with being national, has nothing to do with being a citizens' group and is not a coalition. It is a business. This business raises funds by sending out huge flyers which include a little block at the bottom telling Canadians to send it their dough and it will continue to fight to lower MPs' salaries, cancel their pensions and whatever other things happen to go through its mind at the time and whatever will work to generate funds.
Right now, because politicians are not always seen in the best of light, particularly in an economic downturn, we have become a fair and easy target for that business calling itself the National Citizens' Coalition. Of course, nowhere does the National Citizens' Coalition ever say that MPs pay $7,000 or $8,000 a year in premiums for their pensions.
If those premiums were invested in a five-year GIC, a member of Parliament like the member for Saint-Denis would never recover the interest on his contributions toward the plan let alone the capital outlay he has contributed over the years. The same is undoubtedly true for the hon. member for Windsor West, or the hon.

April 19, 1993
Private Members' Business
member for Victoria-Haliburton who will be retiring shortly. I do not want to make him sound any older but he is a senior. All things being equal, he will probably not draw from this pension for as long as others will. Yet he has been a member for two or three decades and has paid the full premium.
The hon. member for Burlington is here in the House as well. He has been a member for a long time. I am not sure whether he will be a candidate again. I do not know whether he has announced that he will be running again. In any case, many members have paid the pension off fully. They have made hundreds of thousands of dollars of capital outlay and have forgone interest in their pensions and they will never collect.
However, that does not make news for the National Citizens' Coalition. What makes news is the fact that the hon. member for Shefford retired last year and it has added everything that he will draw from his pension. It forgot to put in the contributions he has put into the plan. The National Citizens' Coalition made an arbitrary decision based on how long it decided the hon. member for Shefford was going to live and attributed an amount of money to that. Actuarially, that does not make sense. It is not counted that way.
The chief actuary for Canada has indicated that the MPs' fund is not at all in a deficit position the way some organizations have portrayed it. As a matter of fact it is in a surplus position. When it talked about unfunded liabilities of the plan, that only works if there are three basic assumptions: that every member would retire today; that they will all live to be 75 years of age; and that no new member will ever be re-elected. Presumably, that would make this place a dictatorship and no one would ever contribute toward the plan again. It starts off with those three assumptions and then attributes a cost to all of that. That is sheer and utter nonsense.
The commission we are going to have is welcome. I am glad the minister is doing this but I wish he would appoint the members forthwith, announce them and choose a firm of unimpeachable integrity, such as a firm of actuaries. Let us do it. Maybe we can put this issue to rest at least for a little while until the National Citizens' Coalition thinks up another new scheme to raise funds for itself.
At least the money spent on this commission will make Canadians aware. Whatever recommendations it comes up with I will be ready to live with. If it thinks our salaries are too high, which I doubt, fine. If it thinks they are too low, I know we will not raise them. They will probably stay the same and that is fine too. If it decides that our pensions are too generous, we will have to live with that as well. However the story is a little different from what has been told.
I would like to take only two minutes to talk about occupational salaries. The Statistics Canada publication The Daily of April 13,1993 lists a number of occupations. I will read a few of them into the record. I will not say that MPs should make the same as the highest paid Canadians. Obviously that would not be correct. It should be remembered as well that notwithstanding the way some people are trying to portray it in the media, others certainly make salaries that are as high or higher.
I can give the example of a dentist who makes on average $95,000 a year. Physicians and judges make $102,000. General managers and senior officials of companies make on average $67,000 a year. Airline pilots make $64,893. Chiropractors make $64,299. Engineers make $63,000 and university teachers make $62,000. Therefore, when MPs are paid $65,000 it is certainly a good and handsome salary. However Canadians should not be misled into believing that MPs are of the highest income order because that certainly is not the case.

In any case, I support the motion of the member opposite and I hope that the government will appoint members of integrity to this commission so that Canadians can feel reassured once and for all on this issue and we can talk about something else.
In this Parliament we have spent as much time talking about this subject as we did about national issues. I think we have been getting nowhere on it and we have better things to do. Let us appoint that commission, get it over with and turn the page so that we can talk about other things which would be more important for most of our constituents.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, before I commence my remarks I want to advise the House that my colleague, the hon member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, will be sharing time with me and we will have approximately five minutes each.
April 19, 1993

I am pleased to rise and support the motion before us today. I want to point out that in theory the motion is not needed because the government has already indicated it is prepared to act in this way. I want to put a couple of things on the record.
On February 24, 1992 the President of the Treasury Board in a debate on government Bill C-55, the Public Service Superannuation Act, said:
At the same time 1 know that hon. members share my concern that some members of the public have criticized the current pension plan as too far out of line with general practice.
To be credible, a review of parliamentary pension arrangements must also provide for specific input from the public. I have already indicated that the views of those independent of Parliament will be actively solicited in this study.
On that same day I was sitting beside my leader, the hon. member for Yukon, who devoted most of her second reading speech to the question of compensation of members of Parliament and senators. In that speech she said the following:
I also believe that the time has come to establish a non-partisan, independent commission to deal with the issues of MP pensions; not ex-members of Parliament, as has been the case before, as many of the provinces have, to look at the whole issue of members of Parliament pensions.
She followed up on that comment in the House. On March 17 she wrote to the President of the Treasury Board as follows:
I noted with interest your speech in the House of Commons on February 24 where you indicated an openness to establishing a committee to study changes to MPs' pensions. I urge you to act immediately to set up such a committee.
The committee should be arm's length from Parliament and the government and be comprised of individuals with expertise in the area of pensions. The individuals should not be ex-MPs or senators. The committee should be empowered to examine all aspects of the MPs' pension plan.
I believe it is crucial that this issue be dealt with expeditiously. I propose that the committee be required to report to Parliament within six months of being struck.
I look forward to an early reply.
On June 12 the following reply came from the President of the Treasury Board:
Thank you for your letter of June 11, 1992 concerning the promised inquiry into MPs' pensions.
Private Members' Business
I did not think it appropriate to formally commence the review of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act until after Bill C-55 has received Royal Assent. However, at this time I am developing final proposals on the terms of reference for and composition of the ad hoc group which will undertake this review. There is no question in my mind that all aspects of the MPRAA must be examined and that the study group should be made up of individuals with expertise and public credibility in the area of pensions and compensation. Although I understand your position on the independence of the study group, I am sure you would agree that the review process must fully take into account the views and interests of existing MPRAA plan members and pensioners. Pensions are, and will continue to be, a significant element of the remuneration package which is certainly a factor in enabling individuals to seek public office.
I am sorry that you did not receive my reply to your letter of March 17, 1992. I am enclosing a copy for your records.
That was back in June of last year. All the while the hon. member's motion has been sitting on the Order Paper waiting to be debated until today and no action. There was no public announcement or any indication that the Governor in Council had struck a group, whether it was ad hoc or otherwise, to do the work the minister promised.
On December 3, 1992 my leader again wrote to the President of the Treasury Board:
Further to your letter of June 11, 1992 I would like to know what progress has been made concerning a review of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
In your letter you indicated that a formal review of the MPRAA would not be possible until Bill C-55 had received Royal Assent. Your commitment to a review of the MPRAA is unequivocal since you state: "There is no question in my mind that all aspects of the MPRAA must be examined". Since Bill C-55 received Royal Assent on September 29, 1992 I have seen no indication that you are prepared to fulfil your commitment to this review. I hope that your silence on this issue does not mean you have abandoned your decision to review the MPRAA. I am therefore formally repeating my request that a committee be struck immediately and proceed with a review so that it can report to Parliament next spring.
I would like to reiterate my belief that this is a very crucial issue and should be dealt with immediately. In my opinion, a committee reviewing the MPRAA should be at arm's length from Parliament and the government, and should be comprised of expert individuals who are not members of Parliament or senators, current or former. In addition, the committee should be empowered to examine every aspect of the MPs' pension plan.
In quick conclusion, before I turn this over to my colleague, the government has failed to live up to yet another promise. I hope this motion passes today in order to send a message to the government that it has to listen to Canadians. It is time for an independent review.

April 19, 1993
Private Members' Business


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, especially as he pointed out the role of the hon. member for Yukon, the leader of our party who has pressed for a review of MPs' pensions.
I must say that while I support the motion and acknowledge the MP who is presenting it today, I smell a little politics here. Could it be that the leader of the Reform Party is running-


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: This was long before he became active.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Oh, so this is different. I see. Perhaps I should put my own view on the record.


Mr. Mills:: This is where the Reform Party got the idea.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the pension benefits of members of Parliament should be brought into line with those available to other Canadians. It is as simple as that.
I was walking around my riding in the last two weeks going door to door and meeting constituents, as many members have done. People seemed very pleased to see me and to have the opportunity to talk with a member of Parliament. People said their concerns were about jobs, taxes, or transit in the local areas.
I represent a beautiful suburb of Vancouver that is nestled up against the coast mountains. People said they were concerned about clean air, crime and especially youth problems.
A gentleman I saw yesterday in Citadel Heights, an area of my riding, said: "There is something that sticks in my craw". I asked him what it was and he said it was MPs' pensions. We had a discussion about that. He was unaware that the leader of the NDP had raised this in the House of Commons. She said on February 24, 1992: "In short, I believe the time has come to recognize that these pensions must be brought in line with the general work force. The time has come to bring pensions for members of Parliament into line with the pensions of other Canadians".
We do need an independent commission to look at this. I stress independent. We should look at what age pensions should vest. Should it be age 55? Is six years
enough or too much for people to get pensions? We should have a look at that in a fair-minded manner. We should get the statistics on how many MPs have actually collected after that period.
We should look at the issue of double dipping. That is when one gets a pension from the House, leaves the House and takes another government position, such as being a judge, and receives more money from the government. Should one be allowed to collect the pension and the other salary? Those are the kinds of things that the commission should look into.
We in the NDP support good pensions for people. We have always done that in the House of Commons. However we want them to be fair pensions.
These are veiy tough times for the average citizen. We have to cut back. We have to pay our fair share of taxes. We have to look at everything.
I am a Scottish Canadian and am accused of being a bit cheap occasionally. I do not believe that but some of my friends believe that. If I had my way I would cut back even the little things.
While some of us may say that the pension amount is a small amount we still have to consider that, so that there can be more money available for health and education. We have to look at all our expenditures.
While we are doing that we should look at pensions for senators. If I had my druthers I would just abolish the Senate completely and we could save a heck of a lot of money there. At some point the government might get around to considering that.
Let me sum up by saying that we MPs should be no different than average citizens. We deserve fair pensions but should not place ourselves on a pedestal and be different from average citizens. What is good for the average citizen should be good for MPs and vice versa. That is why an independent commission should have another look at MPs' pensions.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on this motion urging the government to contract an independent, non-governmental agency to review all salaries, allowances, benefits and pensions of members of Parliament and senators and make recommendations on these to the House.
April 19, 1993

Clearly this is a matter of some importance to all members of this House. I would first like to direct hon. members' attention to what the government has already proposed be done regarding a review of members' pensions and benefits.
When the President of the Treasury Board spoke last year in this House on the second reading of Bill C-55 he outlined the approach the government intended to adopt regarding a review of this nature. The President of the Treasury Board said the first priority was to bring the MPs' pension plan in line with the requirements of the Income 'lax Act and regulations by enactment of an amendment contained in Bill C-55.
However, he stated that the government was aware that pension arrangements for members of Parliament had been subject to public scrutiny and therefore all aspects of the plan would be re-examined, including those features which have been criticized as being too generous.
The President of the Treasury Board made it clear that the views of hon. members would be a key element in this review since the government is very much aware of the importance members attach to their retiring allowances as part of their over-all compensation packages. Nevertheless the President of the Treasury Board added that he was aware hon. members shared his concerns and some members of the public have been vocal in their criticism that MPs' pension plans are too far out of line with general practice.
Therefore the President of the Treasury Board told members of this House: "To be credible a review of the parliamentary pension arrangements must also provide for a specific input from the public and the views of those independent of Parliament will be actively solicited in this study". I should add that this approach is quite in keeping with the government's intention with respect to the broad review of Public Service pension arrangements announced by the President of the Treasury Board in December 1991 and reiterated when Bill C-55 received second reading. That review closely involved the major stakeholders in pension plans as well as many other interested parties.
To return to the motion before us, it must be said that there is strong agreement in principle with the motion of
Private Members' Business
the member for Calgary Southwest. While the government recognizes the position of some hon. members that the review agency should be independent and non-partisan I am sure hon. members would agree that the review process must also take into account the views and interests of sitting and retired members of Parliament who are pension plan members and pensioners. I know hon. members attach great importance to their pensions as a very significant element in their compensation package.
A truly independent non-governmental agency will be able to provide us with an objective assessment of our present compensation package in relation to our duties and responsibilities as members of Parliament. It will also examine all elements of our benefits package in relation to the benefits packages of others who serve in public life, such as provincial MLAs and those serving in the legislatures of other countries such as the United States of America, the United Kingdom and so forth. Once this data has been gathered and analysed we will be in a position to determine the most suitable vehicle for examining whether adjustments should be made and the nature of those adjustments.
Finally, I could put on the record the fact that it would appear most hon. members from all sides of the House, while aware of public criticism of their pension arrangements, see their pension plan as an important part of the over-all compensation package attached to their jobs as elected representatives. Such pensions make it possible for all Canadians, including those of modest means, to consider running for public office. I am aware of a number of hon. members for whom the pension plan was a critical part of their decision to seek elected office. These pensions are, in part, intended to compensate for the sacrifices involved in public life, including the lost career opportunities and the lack of controlled retirement planning which is part and parcel of that life.
We all recognize that some former members have gone on from parliamentary careers to hold other public offices, but there are many more who have returned to private life to attempt to re-establish themselves. It might also be mentioned that about half the serving members never receive any pension at all, since members must be elected twice or be here for six years to qualify for a pension. A member contributes 11 per cent

April 19, 1993
Private Members' Business
of his salary toward the pension, a feature of the plan that is not mentioned very often by critics. There are many out there who believe that we do not contribute anything at all to our pensions.
As was evident from the debate in the House during the passage of Bill C-55, I have in mind particularly the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, many members do not believe that their pensions are excessively generous. They look at pensions in the context of the member's over-all compensation and in the context of the sacrifices inherent in public life. Many members do not believe that the citizens' coalition has the support of most Canadians.
Nonetheless the government is on record as favouring a review of MPs' pensions and will be soliciting and seriously examining concerns of the public in that context.
I know that all members will be eager to make their views known and that the government may expect co-operation from all members in this process.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of this motion put forward by the member for Calgary Southwest. I will be splitting my time with my colleague from St. Boniface.
I am a member from the downtown Toronto area. We see and hear most often the advertisements from the National Citizens' Coalition which buys full-page advertisements in The Toronto Star, The Toronto Sun, and the odd time in The Globe and Mail. The theme of this particular campaign of analysing the pensions of MPs is to basically discredit the system and discredit members of Parliament.
I have a background in the private sector and have been exposed to many successful entrepreneurs in this country and can honestly say, having had five years' experience as a member of Parliament, that I have met very few entrepreneurs in this country who worked as hard as 90 per cent of the MPs I have met and worked with in this House of Commons. In fact some of the hardest working entrepreneurs in this country, who are making $300,000, $400,000, $500,000, or over $1 million a year, do not in any way, shape or form do the same amount of travelling, put in the hours, give out their
private telephone numbers and are not on duty almost seven days a week, sometimes 24 hours a day.
This campaign put forward by the National Citizens' Coalition is a total sham in that it does not accurately portray what really goes on in the Parliament of Canada, in committees or in constituencies, which is too bad because it puts a stain on each and every member and ultimately does not do anyone in this country a service.
However I, as the member for Calgary Southwest stated in her motion, have enough confidence, as do most members in this House, that what we are saying should not be analysed by a committee of the House. It should go to an independent body which should analyse salaries of MPs, their so-called benefits, and their pension plan. As the member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell said earlier today, very few people realize that the existing pension plan is not something that is gifted to MPs but is something they pay into. They pay a very generous sum of money. If the independent analysts say it should be deferred until the age of 55 or 60 is reached so be it. If they want to do that type of analysis I am sure every member of Parliament would support whatever recommendations they have.
The point I want to make, besides acknowledging that independent analysis is necessary, is that the problem we have is timing. We are about to go to the people of Canada in an election.
I think this independent committee should be set up immediately. We should not have a report back in six or eighteen months. This is something that can be done in 90 days. There is no need for this study to take an extended period of time. It is something that should be put to rest before it becomes an election issue, not created by the NDP, the Liberals or the Conservatives, but created by a third party because we have not dealt properly in this House with third party advertising.
I ask the member to urge her colleagues to put this motion to the House and ask for the report back within 90 days so that all of us in this House can vote on it.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this particular motion this morning. Colleagues will perhaps recall that this is the third time I have had an opportunity to speak on the issue of MPs' pensions in the House of Commons during the last four years.
April 19, 1993

I do not want to suggest I have been the only one because I have been joined by colleagues such as the members for Winnipeg St. James, Edmonton Southeast, Winnipeg North and others.
The basic issue here is that irresponsible statements are being made about MPs' pensions. It is also linked to another basic principle, and that is the fact that we make those rules. In order to make sure that there is some fairness and objectivity brought into this highly sensitive issue at this particular point in time, it is particularly important to make sure it is an independent third party that makes those kinds of decisions.
After having reviewed I would suggest not only MPs' salaries, pensions and other benefits but those of members of the Senate, legislative assemblies, councils, the private sector and other organizations, we will see if there is a pattern.
Surely what we all want is an element of fairness. I believe even those who have been critical want us to be remunerated and benefit in a fair way. Until it is we who make the rules, until it is we who continue to decide what it is we are going to get, we are going to have this kind of difficulty. In fact we are open to attacks such as my colleague has just mentioned where people make unfair statements.
There are a number of MPs who because of their decision to run for Parliament-and it was their decision-will be getting less money from their pensions. There are numbers of individuals and I happen to be one of them. I am not at all being critical of that. It was I who decided to run but I am not the only one. It is rather interesting when you are attacked. It is always the examples of the extreme situation. I would very much like to have an independent third party commissioned to review this plan.
There are a number of anomalies and I will mention them very briefly. We cap at 75 per cent and the general public, normally 70 per cent of our salaries. People do not like that. If my memory serves me correctly we do not have to work nearly the same number of years to get the 50 per cent pension. That is held in high esteem by many people.
Government Orders
There is the issue of double dipping, getting a job once one has in fact resigned from elected office or has not been re-elected. That annoys a lot of people. There are provisions for early retirement that are enjoyed nowhere else.
I really believe that this independent commission could in fact look at each one of these issues, address them in the context of what is happening in terms of pensions in the private and public sectors and then render a verdict of which we would have to take cognizance.

I could say a lot about it. As I just said, this is the third time that I have had an opportunity to speak on it. What I want above all is some fairness. We are being attacked now_and I understand that there are some grounds for it-but some things are being exaggerated as well. This does not mean that some things should not be changed, because I think that some things here should be altered. However I would like to have a review carried out by an independent non-governmental organization.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the item is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications) moved: that Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, almost 84 years ago the Right Hon. George Percy Graham, the Minister of Railways and Canals, rose in this House of Commons to introduce the Railway Act. It was a well crafted piece of legislation

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
and in it were many of the principles that guide Canadian transportation and communications policy to this day.
I recently leafed through some of the debates on the Railway Act and found it most compelling that the members were concerned about the very things that concern members in this House today.
In the early days of this century the railroad was vital as both a tool of communication and a major commercial venture. As a result, early legislators recommended that the government exercise some control over this key sector while encouraging competition wherever possible. They proposed establishing a federal body to regulate the railways, which is an ancestor of the CRTC which regulates communications today. They also raised concerns about how to manage new technology and regulate telephone rates, especially long distance charges.
Robert Borden, who did not yet carry the title right honourable, described his approach this way: "The government has adopted the system of private ownership with public control. Of that system it may be said that it is very much better than private ownership without public control". It was a good principle then and it is still sound now.
Times have changed and legislation designed for steam engines and Morse code is not well suited to a world of satellites and microchips. In 1908, space travel and modem telecommunications were confined to the literary world of Jules Verne. In 1992, Canadian astronauts Roberta Bondar and Steve MacLean circled the earth in a space shuttle well beyond the imaginings of those early science fiction writers.
Telecommunications has progressed from being an infant industry to one of the fastest growing sectors of our economy. Our recent history demonstrates just how impressive that growth has been. From 1988 to 1990 the Canadian economy grew by 4.6 per cent, 2.6 per cent and .3 per cent respectively. During those same years the growth rates of the telecommunications industry were 9.6 per cent, 14.2 per cent and 8.6 per cent, impressive numbers by any standard.
The telecommunications industry is almost wholly Canadian owned and 90 per cent privately held. It is an essential instrument of our economic development, not simply because it is a dynamic and growing industry but also because it acts as a catalyst to the competitiveness of
many other industries. Without a telecommunications system that is on the front edge of modern technology, our banks, transport companies, retail industry, financial services and countless others would not be able to compete in international markets.
It is no longer possible to seek future solutions in past practices. This fact has not been lost on our trading competitors. The Japanese have targeted telecommunications as a prime interest and the Europeans have made it an essential part of their 1992 market unification. The Americans, our chief trading partners, have already completed a telecommunications reform which has given them a highly competitive system at both the domestic and international levels. We ignore these facts at our own peril.
Business, think-tanks and government studies alike have concluded that a modem legislative framework is crucial to Canada's ability to compete in telecommunications. Unfortunately, we do not have modem and efficient legislation. While Robert Borden and George Percy Graham are long since gone, our telecommunications industry is still governed by the Railway Act of 1908, which is so dated that it is not even used to regulate the railways any more.

The Railway Act was designed for a world of small, fragmented markets that adopted new technologies very gradually. That world has disappeared for good.
Anyone who doubts this should look at how the way new technologies are implemented has changed.
The first camera did not come on the market until 112 years after it was invented. It took 56 years for the first telephone, 35 years for radio, 15 years for radar and only 12 for television.
In the case of transistors, it took only three years, and only two for solar batteries. In microelectronics, the lag is now less than 18 months.
Because of this development, to be competitive today, a business must be able to determine, target and penetrate new markets faster than ever before.
The road to success is difficult and challenging, and the last thing our businesses need is to find their path strewn with regulatory barriers.
April 19, 1993

Nevertheless, reports, commissions and studies have told us repeatedly that Canadian businesses are faced with an overwhelming number of regulatory barriers. One of this government's main objectives has been to take down those barriers.
In his 1992 budget, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, announced a full review of government regulations in order to simplify procedures as much as possible.
The CRTC became part of this process last summer, when it completed the most thorough review in its history and announced its decision to allow competition on the long-distance market.

It must be clear to everyone here today that the Railway Act, which was designed to control monopoly activities, is not compatible with an ever changing competitive marketplace.
The telecommunications industry has been restructured to accommodate competition. We still have legislation in place which inhibits competition. For the restructuring to make sense we need new legislation. We simply cannot have one without the other.
Three years ago the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that members of Telecom Canada fell within federal jurisdiction. Since then we have successfully concluded agreements with six of the seven provinces affected. Now we need to build on those agreements. We must pull the current patchwork of legislation into one bill designed to encourage efficiency and excellence and help us compete in international markets.
Bill C-62 will do exactly that. It will eliminate the barriers which fragment our internal market, leaving us with one unified telecommunications market. It will establish a coherent policy for the entire country that will be co-ordinated by one regulatory agency, the CRTC.
Bill C-62 will give us a more regulatory framework, allowing the CRTC to forbear from regulating in those areas where the marketplace is already competitive. It will promote Canadian ownership and control of telecommunications carriers, thereby contributing to Canadian sovereignty. It will permit the government, which is responsible through Parliament to the Canadian public,
Government Orders
to make broad public policy decisions by issuing directives to the CRTC when it is appropriate to do so.
This bill will guarantee sensitivity to regional needs, giving people who are far away from Ottawa an unprecedented degree of participation. Finally, it will give the CRTC new powers to protect consumers from invasions of privacy such as the transmission of unsolicited advertising by telephone or fax.
Most members are already aware that I am very concerned that as we embrace new technology for its benefits we must also be aware of its limitations. Cellular telephones, for example, give callers incredible range and mobility, yet offer little more protection than simply shouting across the street.
Automatic telephone dialing equipment can give business a competitive edge, but it can also lead to a proliferation of unsolicited and sometimes intrusive telemarketing calls. No one knows this better than our colleagues from the Toronto region where the problem is especially acute. They have scores of written complaints to prove it.
Fax machines have revolutionized the exchange of printed and graphic information, but they have also opened a new channel for junk mail. Unlike its posted equivalent, the junk fax has the added disadvantage of arriving at the expense of the recipients. It uses their paper and ties up their phone lines and machines when others may want to use them for legitimate purposes.
Because of such concerns, I have explicitly included privacy in the policy objectives of Bill C-62 as well as a section which deals specifically with unsolicited telecommunications.
These provisions will give the CRTC the regulatory authority required to ensure the greatest possible level of privacy protection for Canadian consumers. By addressing privacy concerns, the bill goes hand in hand with changes we are making to the Radiocommunications Act and the establishment of the private sector telecommunications privacy protection agency.

Both the industry and consumers will benefit when Bill C-62 is adopted. In fact, the bill has met with widespread support across the country, because it will improve market conditions for both users and suppliers.

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
However, we must not forget it is not easy to develop legislation to adjust to a rapidly evolving sector, and it should come as no surprise that a number of questions about the intent and scope of the bill have been raised.
Some people feel that Bill C-62 would give cabinet too many powers, questioning the need for issuing directives. The philosophy behind this power is based on the principle that decisions on basic government policy should be made by the government, not by the regulatory body.
The purpose of this particular section is not to involve the minister in specific matters of regulatory procedure. Such matters come under the jurisdiction of the CRTC. However, I believe that decisions on basic government policy should be made by elected representatives, not by appointed administrators.
There are people who believe the bill gives the government too much leeway, and there are as many who believe the opposite. Others doubt the market will function in a responsible manner.
Although in my opinion this is a balanced piece of legislation, I am open to suggestions for improvement. In fact, a number of interesting proposals have been made so far.

In particular, I am thinking of the pre-study of Bill C-62, which was conducted by the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications last spring. I was pleased that the committee approved the three main objectives of the bill: to increase the competitiveness of the telecommunications industry; to promote Canadian ownership and control; and to ensure that Canadians have access to reliable and affordable services.
I appreciate the thoughtful and non-partisan changes the senators suggested with the view to strengthening the bill's effectiveness. As I indicated to the Senate committee, the government is always open to improvements, provided the basic principles behind this legislation are not compromised.
I have carefully studied comments made with respect to the proposed licensing regime: regulatory forbearance; the terms of federal-provincial consultation; the bill's objectives section; ways to improve regulatory efficiency; and other key issues.
The government will be proposing a number of amendments to Bill C-62, which are strongly influenced by the Senate committee's recommendations. I will speak to these amendments early during the House committee's considerations.
There has already been much said and written about Bill C-62. Some groups have expressed specific concerns, but we have also heard almost universal support for the goal of updating a legislative framework which is over 80 years old. Bill C-62, which is the product of many years of consultation, is the best solution.
Industry will win by having one national market, national standards across the country and a simplified and more flexible regulatory system. Provinces will win by having more productive businesses and more input in setting policy than ever before in the history of our country. Canadians as a people will win because we will be able to build upon the strengths of our one great winner in the high-tech field. Canadians as individuals will benefit by having guaranteed base levels of service across the country no matter where they live.
For most Canadians telecommunications regulation is a fairly arcane business. At first glance it appears to be of great interest to only a few select people who are active in the industry. However this bill is not only important to telephone companies. It will mean benefits for banks, hospitals, airlines, the transport and retail industries, and a host of other businesses. Since we all use these services it means that every consumer in Canada will be affected in a positive way.
The bill means jobs because it will help Canada's premier high-tech industry to become more competitive than ever before. It means new and better services will come to market more quickly as we strip away excessive regulation and encourage research and development.
Finally, this bill means that each and every one of us can expect first-class affordable service in our homes or at our businesses.
Back in 1908 our predecessors in this House of Commons showed extraordinary vision in passing the Railway Act, a law that would remain in place for the better part of a century. Today a new century is on the horizon. Bill C-62 is a worthy successor to the Railway Act. In passing it we will do more than simply place an eminently useful law on the statute books. It will enable

April 19, 1993
Canadians to face the telecommunications challenges of the year 2000 with confidence.
I believe it is a challenge that is worthy of each and every one of us in this House of Commons. When we talk to Canadians today we find that they recognize that we benefit in Canada from the best telecommunications industry anywhere in the world. Industry says that we need to ensure that innovation can continue and that the conditions are in place to allow competition to improve services for consumers and to allow new goods and services to be brought onto the market as quickly as possible. That is the challenge that faces each and every one of us.
As I indicated earlier, the government has very closely listened to suggestions for improvements to the bill. Today I repeat to my colleagues on the opposition side of the House that we will continue to take an approach that is consultative and open. We welcome input from them and other Canadians with regard to improvements that can be made to the bill.
However we are also prepared to act. As I indicated earlier in my remarks today, when the bill goes to committee we will be prepared to place before the committee at an early date substantive amendments to make improvements to the bill as a result of the hearings that were held before the Senate committee.
What is required now is for this House of Commons to act quickly to permit this bill to go to committee, to allow the government to table those amendments before the committee, to allow improvements to be made to the legislation and to allow us to put this legislation in place for the benefit of every Canadian. This legislation is modern and will bring benefits to every single region of Canada, ensure that Canadian industry becomes more competitive, better protect the privacy of Canadians, and help to protect and enhance the productivity of our country and create a wealthier society in which Canadians can live in the future.
I call upon all members of this House to give their speedy, favourable consideration to this legislation. It deserves the support of every member of this House just as it deserves the support of every Canadian from one coast to another.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation among the parties in this House and I believe that you will find consent for the following motion. I move:
That a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on
Communications and Culture be authorized to consider Bill C-62,
an act respecting telecommunications, and report thereon directly to
the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, we certainly agree with the moving of this bill into a knowledgeable committee that will listen and understand its complexities and at the same time reach the goals so clearly enunciated in the speech that has just been delivered by the minister, in which he said we will have better jobs, new competitive services, and increased research and development, if and when substantive amendments are brought forward.
That is all very well and good and I am looking forward to that reality. To date that reality has only been a series of promises. As we all know, the devil is in the detail and the proof is in the pudding, so I wait with a great deal of interest to see what the minister intends to bring forth under this Bill C-62 with respect to the amendments he has so comfortably spoken about intending to present.
It is very true that as the member representing Mount Royal, in which there are some important telecommunications companies, I have had the privilege of looking out into society and recognizing that telecommunications is certainly the highway, the railroad of today and tomorrow and that changes absolutely must be made. Of this there is no doubt.
There is doubt in my mind about how this government is prepared to stand here today and call for the speedy convening of the standing committee to study this matter and the speedy forward movement of this bill given the fact that this bill has had an incredibly long history. It was drafted in 1987, and here we are now in 1993 looking at something in a field in which technology has changed so dramatically.

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
The minister even reminded this House about the spaceships that are circling the world. He did not mention, but I will, the Canadarm, which was made in the Montreal area, and Roberta Bondar, of whom all of us are very proud. We are very proud of those changes, but they have taken place within the last blink of an eyelash. It is more than time that this government, which made all kinds of promises in 1984, brought this bill forward.
I agree that we need to deal swiftly with this bill but I would suggest that we have some serious problems with this bill. Although the minister has said that he will speak to and bring in a series of substantive amendments I would like to bring to the attention of the public and the industry the concerns that were raised at the Senate hearings. The briefing book of what was said at those hearings is on my desk. I intend to quote from it and I hope that the minister, and I will take him seriously when I hear the amendments presented, has really and truly listened.
This whole procedure has not been as I envisaged the process. It has not been a constructive and open process. This is not the kind of process that even the candidates today are saying we need. We need a more open process.
I doubt that it should be rushed through per se. It should be rushed through if and when it becomes an improved bill. From the indications of the minister, which I will take as given, those changes, if constructive, certainly will allow the quick process.

I want to bring to the attention of this House and of Canadians an excerpt from the brief of the Civil Liberties Union to the Senate, in which it said: "It is necessary to be able to discuss the evolution of telecommunications in open debate conducted by an independent specialized regulatory body. This is even more necessary because new developments will increasingly involve issues of rights and freedoms. Unfortunately, it seems that in the bill as now written, the privacy tree hides the forest of rights and freedoms in question and that practical measures for their consideration are lacking. Mechanisms for the social, legal and economic evaluation of major projects are an assurance of democratic control over the evolution of our telecommunications system."
I think that is an avertissement of importance.
The Liberal Party takes telecommunications issues just as seriously as it does the parliamentary process. We are not a rubber stamp to approve a flawed bill. It is not the opposition but the minister and his government who are responsible for coming in here at the eleventh hour with this bill saying:"Trust me on the amendments". My trust goes only so far to the concrete act. It becomes very difficult for anyone to support a bill going to committee about which the minister himself has raised questions and indicated change.
Having said that, we do put the interests of the Canadian telecommunications industry above that of the minister, the House leader and the government. The messy handling of this bill should not constrain the industry. We should move forward in the standing committee as quickly as possible and make the necessary amendments to clean up this bill.
Let me address for a moment the question of why this bill is so important. The landscape has truly changed. Telecommunications is now Canada's electronic railroad of the 1990s. It employs more than 100,000 Canadians and generates over $20 billion in revenues. I appreciate the minister's updating of certain financial factors and I will look at that with a great deal of interest.
It has emerged as an important and strategic industry for our entire economy and it can help us create the knowledge intensive, value added, high technology jobs of the future. It can help Canada locate these jobs where people are, often outside of traditional business centres and particularly in our regions. It can be an economic tool for growth and employment.
All of this cannot happen by itself. As an industry that remains highly regulated the telecommunications sector requires the appropriate government policy, legislative and regulatory environment in which to succeed. While there is private ownership the need for ongoing public control is apparent.
This is why Bill C-62, with proper amendments and improvements, is a fundamentally important bill. It is also why we are so disappointed that it took nine years for the government to produce this bill and almost another full year before it got around to second reading. These delays say a great deal about this Conservative government's commitment to telecommunications. The delays and inactions going back to 1984 were not only
April 19, 1993

poor public policy choices at the time but over time have contributed to a closed door, behind the scenes decisionmaking process which in the end led us to this flawed bill.
In addition to these flaws the government's failure to lead a national discussion on telecommunications policy means Canada has never developed a clear strategy in consensus with Canadians.
This government never sat down to look at the telecommunications industry, study how its various component parts work together, and come up with some very clear directions. It may well have done this behind the closed doors of the minister's office and around the table with the interested industry, but did it hear from the Canadian public? Not to the degree it should have. This is the approach that should have taken place. It is a view that would have been supported by large numbers of witnesses that came before the Senate pre-study hearings on this bill.
Once the strategy had been developed the government opposite could then have proceeded to the hearings, because at least it moved to have the pre-study hearings for which the minister deserves a thank you and some appreciation. Why did the minister not take the next step and move into a consultative mechanism when he noted that so many flaws were found in that bill by so many different sectors of the industry?
Unfortunately we are now stuck with the results: no national strategy and a flawed bill that needs a lot of work. There was never a white paper, a green paper, or any thorough public review of telecommunications issues. This government never asked the people of Canada what their goals were, what they wanted to see in their telephone system, what their privacy concerns were, or whether they were being met. Over the last nine years we never saw an open process that invited the business community to come on in and have its say and put its comments on record.
Let us go before the public before we draft the bill, not after. Once the bill was drafted, then amendments were needed, so let us see if the amendments suit. It would be a far easier mechanism and would certainly reflect what the public is saying which is that they would like to have a say in major areas of this nature.
Government Orders
As a matter of fact I believe the Minister of Communications had a very important study done on cable and telephone convergence and their networks. Even this study was done behind closed doors. There was never any public discussion about that convergence. Not one part of this bill reflects the thinking or the findings of that study. In fact cable is left almost outside the bill. I do not think it is the best way to move to a new vision about telecommunications which could be reflected both in the role that the private sector would have and in the public policy that would be brought forward.
Despite the glowing words from the Conservative ministers, the Minister for International Trade, the hon. member for Frontenac and Flora MacDonald, they have never produced a vision to match the rhetoric.
Let us briefly review these commitments. We can go as far back as a statement of the Minister for International Trade in 1984. In the economic statement he said: "There is a clear need for a national telecommunications policy to take advantage of the opportunities presented by rapidly advancing technology and the growing demand by Canadians for new telecommunication services". He then added: "Through the regulatory reform, the government can spur innovation and provide a major stimulus to the Canadian economy". Yet there was never a bold strategy leading to Bill C-62.
We can go to the speech of the member for Frontenac to the Canadian Bar Association on February 12, 1986 where he stated: "The fundamental revision of the policy and regulatory framework which allows the telecommunication industry to realize its potential has thus become a priority for me and for the government. I tackled reforms head on while establishing the basic principle that should inspire it". We never ever heard about those basic principles; no strategy paper, no green paper, no white paper, no paper of any colour. Here we are today with detailed legislation before the House.
Then there was Flora MacDonald's paper in 1987, "Communications for the 21st Century". She said: "In spite of our past achievements in communications, Canada has not reacted to the changes that are taking place in our own economy and the larger world in the same way as other advanced industrial nations. We have been content to rest on our laurels to cope with the challenges of the new environment. It is time to call this complacen-

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
cy into question". This was in 1987 and she drafted her type one and type two memo.
Now we have the present minister, who tabled this bill in February 1992, who four months later at the Senate pre-study said: "To delay its"-that is Bill C-62-"implementation would be to slow the growth of an industry which is vital to the Canadian economy". I could not agree more strongly with his comments.
Here we are over a year after introduction and after the Senate report and this bill is only now coming for second reading in the House of Commons.
Canadians can see that the government left this industry in a substantial policy vacuum while pillars of the sector were developing extremely rapidly. The government never kept up with the pace of changes, never addressed how the environment was progressing and therefore never demonstrated a clear understanding of what needed to be done. That is why we have this flawed bill which was deposited last February.
The Senate pre-study held promise and yet the minister has let it lie on the shelf for almost a year. Now he has alluded today that there will be changes. Other than the allusions, I sincerely await with almost bated breath to see if the changes will be brought forward.
In essence the government left Canada labouring under century old legislation and a long series of ad hoc decisions affecting the pillars of this industry. That is the onset of competition, the privatization of Telesat and Teleglobe, tremendous advances in technology and services, the problems around cellular telephones, all with no coherent or co-ordinated approach from government, something the Liberals called on this government to produce for years.
What do we have in Bill C-62 and what should be the goals? I would suggest that it must provide a fresh direction for the telecommunication sector so it can maximize the benefits to every Canadian of the worldwide information revolution in terms of learning, literacy, education, training and communicating. It must bring
the marvels of this revolution from our biggest cities to our outermost communities.
The bill, which was introduced last February, is far from what the country needs. If the government truly wishes to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness at the national and international levels of Canadian telecommunications, the lack of clarity, the ambiguity in many sections of the bill will prove a hindrance in this pursuit and many companies will be spending a heck of a lot of time in the courts of this land in costly litigation trying to disentangle this very tangled web. This is counterproductive.
Let me turn to a number of issues in this bill which are very serious. First let me deal with how the bill addresses the question of acting on the Supreme Court ruling in the Alberta government telephone case.
Liberals supported the bill's attempt at unifying national jurisdiction over telecommunications. We supported the Supreme Court in August 1989 when it ruled on the AGT case which largely found in favour of federal jurisdiction over telecommunications. We believe Canada needs harmonized rules and regulations governing this sector if all Canadians are to have equal access to the benefits of the information revolution and that we do not have interruptions as a result of interprovincial wars and concerns.
How the transition rules will work and how regional sensitivities will be taken into account certainly need to be studied in committee where restructuring is needed. Through the CRTC we need to have real competition, not pretend competition.
With respect to definitions, I had mentioned that there was a serious list of concerns that perhaps were going to end us up in the courts with a lot of litigation. Right within the definition section alone there is concern from the Canadian Bar Association on the definition of rate. What is and how do you determine a rate? The suggestion made was that the word charge in the definition of rate be replaced. There was a series of concerns around how the word rate is used.
April 19, 1993

Under the telecommunications common carrier, we have concerns with respect to how this term is to be defined. I suggest the following observations made by Fonorola although there are many that are made in exactly the same language.
Fonorola would like to ensure that resellers are not covered by the definition contained in clause 2 under the heading telecommunications, common carrier, that is a person who owns or operates transmission facilities used to provide the telecommunications services to the public for compensation. Since there is more than one category of resellers, it would be important for Parliament to exclude specifically those businesses operating in the field.
Another point of view was the Canadian Satellite Users Association. It felt it was vital to its members that the minister's statement that resellers are not included in this bill be unambiguously reflected in the language of the legislation.
The Government of Saskatchewan had a series of concerns. "No one has any idea where the reseller business in Canada is ultimately headed" it said. However, regardless of this, the bill takes pains to ensure they are permanently excluded from any form of regulation, contrary to what the others have said.
Telesat says: "A telecommunications regulatory regime sufficient to ensure the CATV industry competes fairly with other common carriers has to be devised". That is only with respect to telecommunication carriers.
The radiocommunications industry says: "Our members are already regulated by the Department of Communications under the Radiocommunications Act". There is an obvious question of overlapping jurisdiction.
Just in the field of telecommunications common carrier there is concern. Under teletransmission facility in clause 2, the CRTC says that of particular concern to them is the ambiguity of the critical definition of transmission facility which is woven into the other definitions in question.
The commission recommends that the ambiguity in the definition be removed by clearly setting out what is meant to be included and excluded. Telesat says that the company finds the definitions of telecommunication facility and transmission facility cumbersome and confusing. The confusion must be corrected through redrafting.
The Communications and Electrical Workers of Cana-
Govemment Orders
da say that a certain exclusion such as wiring and other matters will prevent the CRTC from exercising its full regulatory powers over telephone apparatus and indoor wiring. This would force telephone subscribers to buy and service their own indoor wiring. The exclusion could also affect the CRTC's rate determination process with respect to installation and service charges as well as telephone set rental rates.
I suggest there is a problem around transmission facilities that needs to be cleared up. The Canadian Bar Association has a problem with that definition. It says: "If resellers are not in fact captured by the legislation, entry into the resale market will be entirely free under Bill C-62 regardless of the citizenship or nationality of the reseller. Given the uncertainty as to the application of the bill to non-facilities based resellers, in our view it would be most useful if the government's intentions were clarified directly in the bill". We need this for greater clarity.
The Canadian Bar Association adds, and I bring this to the minister's attention in case he has not had the opportunity to read it: "This is not something we have discussed with the rest of the section but it seems that it would probably be more useful to focus on exactly what kind of activity it is the government wishes to trigger in the legislation rather than any particular technology, not least because the technology change is so fast in this business".
We can then look at the definition of a Canadian carrier. The Canadian Labour Congress brings to our attention it is very important that we may not be able to regulate someone outside of Canada. How does the minister intend to handle this particular issue?
The Government of Newfoundland says that generally the definitions of transmission facility, Canadian common carrier, common carrier facility service are confusing, that it is a jungle.
The CBTA in the discussion of exclusive federal jurisdiction and Communications Canada has said: "We want a clear statement from this government that federal jurisdiction over telecommunications is not on the table. Further that jurisdiction over the sector will be held inviolate from provincial encroachment in the future".

April 19, 1993
Government Orders Fonorola has said:

"Fonorola would like to note that it is in favour of a single statute and a single regulatory agency in the field of telecommunications because this is a field where fragmentation plays against all Canadian and Quebecois businesses. The U.S. commission, the FCC, covers the 51 states, and the size of our country does not allow for scattered jurisdictions. This would be counterproductive and run against current international trends in the sector."

Rogers has said the lack of unified regulatory jurisdiction over Canada's major telephone companies have in Cantel's case resulted in significant provincial trade barriers and has inhibited the development of the national cellular service.
I would suggest that the lack of uniform regulatory jurisdiction, whether through negotiations with the provinces or through the CRTC being divided up in regional councils, needs to be looked at very carefully because we do not want to have de facto what cannot be done in any other way.
The government did establish the power of direction providing for broad policy directives to be issued by a Governor in Council as guidance to the CRTC in the broadcast act. Having that power in this bill for telecommunications matters is not a surprise but it raises a red flag of concern when the minister is establishing this new power of direction in telecommunications matters and maintaining the power to vary and rescind CRTC decisions at the same time.
In essence the minister and the cabinet will be able to intervene both at the front end and the back end of the process, effectively turning the CRTC into a rubber stamp. To paraphrase what the Royal Bank representatives had to say when they appeared before the Senate, the minister and the Governor in Council will have so much control over the process that it is of concern.
The Canadian Bar Association says there is too much potential for political interference. It points out: "To grant to the government both of these powers would
signal a significant departure from the principle of the independence of specialized administrative tribunals".
Clause 9 goes into exemptions. The question of the Governor in Council giving itself the broad power of exemption must be examined very closely. I agree with the Senate report that the CRTC should deal with the exemptions when they come up.
The CRTC said: "We think that the exemption power as proposed in the legislation opens the door in that area too widely, that it could be proscribed to ensure that we achieve the objectives that the drafters of the legislation obviously had in mind without opening it up to enable all types of carriers to be exempt. It would simply be a matter of rewriting the legislation to narrow it to specific classes, categories or sizes of carriers so that the smaller carriers that the government would like to relieve of some of these regulatory requirements could be accommodated and the major carriers that move and shake this industry in this country would not be exempted. They would continue to have to comply with the regulatory regime". Therefore, the CRTC believes it is much broader in scope and it needs to be defined and constrained so as not to be used to totally exempt any carrier, including Bell Canada.
I agree with the Senate recommendation that the Governor in Council vary or rescind power should be substituted with the set aside and refer back power now in use in broadcasting and that a timetable be established for cabinet to deal with appeals. I also believe it is worth considering the Canadian Bar Association's suggestion that clause 13 be amended so that the cabinet in making its decisions must exercise this power in a manner consistent with the purpose and objectives of the bill.
With respect to provincial consultation, in this transition to uniform national regulation in telecommunications, because of the Supreme Court's 1989 AGT ruling it would be useful to have a mechanism for regional input. However, clause 14 dealing with provincial consultation must not create an open-ended, almost veto power with provincial consultation over federal decisions that would inhibit the working of an effective national telecommunications policy. Exactly what limits are appropriate under this clause must be carefully examined at committee.
April 19, 1993

I note with great interest the minister's new power to set technical standards in the bill. I suggest there are pros and cons to this matter. In the matter of setting national and international standards for interconnection, we would have to look at this clause because I gather that it is not so clear.
With respect to the minister's licensing carriers in clauses 17 to 23, the Liberal Party and I have already expressed great difficulty with the minister grabbing so many new powers in this bill, particularly in the area of licensing carriers. We have never been convinced of the benefits of licensing at the same time as there is the CRTC regulating telecommunication carriers. The question really is: Why would one want to politicize entry into this market? Why give the power to issue, renew and revoke licences, if the licence in the minister's opinion furthers the bill's telecommunications objectives for Canada, when the CRTC would still have to do the regulating anyway? It just seems strange and adds another layer of red tape which is not helpful. It places the minister, regardless of party, in the middle of a process that should be left up to the CRTC.
These straightforward arguments have been made clear to the government. Had it bothered to undertake an open public dialogue on these issues long before depositing the bill before us it would not have to be here with all these interventions. The minister should really have announced the removal of the licensing power which he gave himself right here in the House today.
On the Canadian ownership rules, if the minister is set to remove licensing from this bill then we will need to know how the criteria and objectives of the licensing regime will be met. Canadian ownership and control is one of the key areas. The minister stated so as he talked about increased competition and the need for local phone services.
We believe that we need to do everything we can to foster a strong, dynamic Canadian telecommunications system. We need to make sure that our own people, our own workers, our own researchers and scientists, our own manufacturers, our own software and hardware designers, all have a chance to prosper and remain on the leading edge of technology.
Government Orders
Let us make sure that there are sufficient safeguards in place so that Canadian interests are protected and when foreign companies come here net benefits to Canada are the top priority. Scrutiny will definitely be necessary as to how the 80 per cent domestic ownership requirements work, how the grandfathering will work, and how future ownership changes of any other company will fit these new rules.
It is who sits on that board and the percentage of their power that really makes the decisions. In short, we want to make sure what the intent of these domestic ownership provisions are and most important, that they work effectively in the national interest of Canada. We also want to see how this translates in terms of resellers and the so-called hybrid companies that need to be looked at.
There is merit in the Senate's suggestion on clause 29 which is that the minister is going to be permitted to define Canadian through regulations. The Senate found this provision to be unnecessary and I tend to agree with it on the face of it.
Forbearance is a major issue in this bill. In terms of the new forbearance power in those market segments where there is effective competition, where we are assured that it exists and continues to exist there is no problem. However, we must have the ability to come in and challenge if there is the least hint that the question of competition is being diminished or constrained. That is why we have to be very sure how we use it. It is not only its intent but the way it works in the public interest at all times.
I now understand that the CRTC agrees with it, but it must have the power to revisit and review. That is the responsibility of government where there is private ownership with public control. For Liberals, we know the concern out there is to avoid wholesale deregulation through an improperly worded forbearance clause. We want it confirmed that there are sufficient safeguards in place to protect consumers when this power is used and that situations can always be revisited.
On competition policy, let me echo something that the Senate alluded to and something I have been concerned about since the privatization of Telesat. That is the need for the competition bureau to have a more explicit role in the consultations with the CRTC and to give regular

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
advice when it is needed in the regulation of the telecommunications industry. Concentration of ownership is a concern in our telecommunications sector.
I therefore concur with the Senate suggestion that the role of competition policy be addressed either directly by the director of the competition bureau or indirectly through a consultative mechanism being put into place in this bill between the CRTC and the competition bureau. The Senate referred to this being a need before the exercise of exemption and forbearance powers at the CRTC. I would go one step further to allow the competition bureau to be brought in on a general matter where its advice, counsel and expertise in the exercise of any of its powers is needed.
I would like to address the matter of the unsolicited telephone communications and telecommunications the minister talked about. Those are the junk phone calls and faxes. We have all been concerned about these phone calls and faxes for some time. The problem has always been in figuring out how we legislate an end to practices. I know they are a nuisance to seniors, families and individuals. We want to make sure that this bill does something concrete about this problem.
So far there are concerns that clause 46 addressing privacy does not go far enough. On the other hand, the serious telemarketing groups also want to make sure their livelihood continues. I expect that the committee will have some very serious testimony on this issue.
While on the subject of privacy I must say that the minister's bill may not be doing all that needs to be done, but neither then are some of his other announcements. He announced the creation of a paper tiger, the telecommunications privacy protective agency, funded by the same industry that generates many of the consumers' complaints. That is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. We have yet to see something concrete. I am looking forward to seeing what the minister has to offer in this regard.
Concerning the subject of this great big headline "Dial-a-racist phone system thriving in Canada", and the method in which the minister sees the ability of the CRTC to handle these newspapers, telephone lines and faxes spreading their daily message of intolerance, today, the 50th anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, is a good time to remember what intolerance can do. Bos-nia-Hercegovina is another example of what happens when intolerance is allowed to be promoted through these telephone lines and faxes.
In conclusion, the Liberal Party will support this bill recognizing that amendments are needed. We are prepared to work to that end with the minister on the standing committee in the interests of Canada, regardless of the fact there has been a slow and messy approach to arriving at this particular moment. This is an historic moment and I am sure the minister deserves some credit. I just wish he had been a little quicker on his feet at the leadership level too.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in debate on Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications.
Bill C-62 proposes sweeping changes to the framework surrounding the telecommunications industry. Those changes reflect the Conservative government's insistence to deregulate and privatize wherever conceivable. We saw these kinds of things taking place when the Liberals were in government and tried to deregulate the airlines. I can remember going to those committees with our member from Regina and telling the government, the Liberals at that time, that it was the wrong thing to do. However, they persisted and we now see what has happened to the airlines because of the deregulations that took place then.
There is no doubt in the New Democratic Party's mind that this is another deregulation step because of the free trade agreements made with the United States. It is the patent drug legislation all over again, making it accessible for others to compete in Canadian markets.
While my colleagues and I have called for an updated telecommunications act to drive Canada into the 21st century, this is not the right vehicle. Canada's telecommunications industry generated $21 billion in revenue last year. It employs 125,000 people.
I will argue that this bill should not be passed at second reading for four main reasons. I understand that again the Liberals are prepared to go along with the government.
The first reason is very simple. According to Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second reading is the most important stage through which the bill is required to pass for its whole principle is then at issue and is affirmed or denied by a vote of the House. According to the Minister of Communications this bill will undergo substantial amendments during the committee stage.
April 19, 1993

At one time the Department of Communications was asked to redraft this bill to take into account the substantial amendments recommended by the Senate transport committee which engaged in a pre-study of this bill. The minister alluded to that during his speech.
It is clearly not correct for this House to pass a bill in principle which will be altered fundamentally at committee stage. Government members may argue that the principle of this bill remains unchanged, but this bill contains seven sweeping policy objectives. Changing any of these policy objectives would undeniably alter the principle of the bill.
The Senate committee recommended changes to those policy objectives. How can any member of this House pass a piece of legislation in principle when the true form of the legislation will not be clear until the amendments are made? Yet that is what the Liberals have said they are prepared to do. They will follow along with the government's proposals.
The second reason this bill should not be passed is clear to anyone who pays a phone bill. In June 1992 the CRTC decided to open up the long distance market. It accepted Unitel's application and assertion that long distance competition would not cost consumers more. If this deregulation experiment fails, the CRTC's hands will be tied. Under this legislation every decision the CRTC makes must diminish regulation and at every turn increase competition.
According to what this government says, the more deregulation we have, the more Canadian consumers will benefit. According to the CRTC local rates would not increase as a result of long distance competition. Yet less than a year ago, after the CRTC decision, telephone companies across this country applied to the CRTC for rate increases left, right and centre.
The telephone companies are asking for these increases for one simple reason. The name of that is cross-subsidization and it is what has put our Canadian telephone system leagues ahead of foreign competitors.
Government Orders
Before the CRTC's June decision every long distance telephone call made by a consumer, small business or multinational corporation cross-subsidized local rates. I hope if this bill does go to committee that the minister will ensure that some pensioners will be able to come to that committee and express their concerns of what could happen to their rates and to their very vital, important communication with other groups. Our long distance rates were higher than they had to be, but for a reason. That was to offset the cost associated with local telephone services.
Local telephone services in Ottawa, Vancouver or Calgary can cost the telephone companies up to 10 times less than providing service to remote locations such as in northern and rural areas. Yet people living in those areas are not paying 10 times more than people living in Toronto, Vancouver or Calgary. It is because of crosssubsidization, which is what has made 92 per cent of Canadians say that they are happy with the telephone service.
Cross-subsidization has given more Canadians phone than in almost any other country in the world. Ninety-eight per cent of Canadians have a telephone. That is a higher penetration rate than in the United States and most European countries.
Bell Canada recently applied to the CRTC for a rate increase. If its application is accepted, local rates will jump as much as 65 per cent.
BC Tel has also asked for a substantial rate increase as well. It wants not only the recent rate increase in its local rates, but also increases in directory assistance, charges and service calls.
Alberta Government Telephones has applied for a 30 per cent increase on its local rates. Ron Liepert from Alberta Government Telephones said in February of this year: "Long distance rates have decreased by 40 per cent". This action means that the proposed 30 per cent increase in local rates is the other side of it.
Both BC Tel and Bell want to charge more for service calls and for directory assistance. These proposed increases all fly in the face of the government's continuing insistence that deregulation and competition will bring rates down.

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
Two separate reports have indicated that charges for local calls have increased world-wide when governments have accepted to reduce long distance rates through competition.
According to the Brussels based European Consumers Organization the gap in the cost of service is widening between small and large users in most nations.
This report that was released in early 1992 said that Canada is one of the most successful models of competition. It is important to note that this report was completed before the CRTC announced its decision to deregulate the long distance market and before this bill was passed.
It is obvious that we used to do things right. According to this report, countries that introduced competition the earliest have the largest gap in cost between small and large users.
A conclusion must be drawn that competition does not help consumers or small businesses. According to the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, before long distance competition was introduced in Canada, our businesses paid less for their local calls than businesses in the U.S., France, Italy, Belgium, West Germany, Austria and Britain.
Again, before long distance competition was introduced, long distance rates for calls within Canada were 15 per cent below that of the OECD average. Prices for international business calls were 17 per cent lower than the OECD average.
The government's own briefing document which discussed the effects that long distance competition was likely to have states: "Competition will require gradual decreases in cross-subsidization and therefore increased rates. This will hit residential and small business users hardest while big business users will benefit". That is exactly the point we are trying to make. We do recognize that for many people in the outer areas the costs are greater and that the big users across the country should help subsidize those areas to ensure that they are available to them. However, the government seems to turn a blind eye to that.
This is according to the same government that keeps on spinning the same tired line that deregulation is going to save consumers money. We can rest assured that it is not going to save money for the average consumer in the small, remote areas.
In the same briefing document the Department of Communications quoted a Peat Marwick study that suggested that local rate increases over five years of between 13 per cent and 93 per cent would be required on a year-by-year basis. This represents 2 per cent to 12 per cent per annum. These increases correspond quite nicely with the increases requested by BC Tel and Bell.
Again, according to the government's document, the annual drop-off rate due to such changes could amount to 2,500 to 7,500 subscribers across Canada.
The chapter goes much further and limits the terms and conditions that Canada will be able to impose in the future. Specifically, legislators will be required to ensure that prices charged for telephone services are based on the economic costs directly related to providing such services.
Although NAFTA will allow cross-subsidization between our existing telephone companies to continue, we will not be able to require resellers to make the contribution payments that are necessary to support universal service. Again, this falls right in line with the government's free trade agreements.
This bill does nothing to prevent this erosion of cross-subsidization.. This bill actually encourages deregulation regardless of its effects on consumers and small businesses in Canada. There is no compassion for our seniors, many of whom cannot get out of their homes and the telephone is their vehicle by which they can communicate with their families. There is no compassion whatsoever.
Again I say to the minister that I hope seniors will be allowed to come to this committee to have their voices heard.
I have with me an advertisement from AT&T in The Wall Street Journal that says: "In 1993 this border will no longer be a barrier". The border they are talking about is the Canada-U.S. border.
This bill prevents foreign companies from owning more than 20 per cent of the telephone company. We think that this provision should have been put into legislation a long time ago.
The problem is that this provision is the only protection Canadian telephone companies are going to get with this legislation. The bill opens the door to resellers and AT&T could be considered a reseller under this legislation. AT&T has enough excess capacity to simply swallow all of Canada's telephone businesses within a hiccup.
April 19, 1993

In the United States, long distance service is subsidized by local rates. High local rates and local measured services are a fact of life for many Americans. That is why many Americans need telephone welfare or subsidized telephone service to be able to afford a telephone. That is the kind of service this legislation would bring us closer to.
Another reason that this bill should not be supported at second reading is that this bill as it stands now jeopardizes the arm's length relationship between the government and the CRTC. Not only does the legislation eliminate any semblance of independence between the CRTC and the government, this bill also makes a mockery of the process of public hearings.
This bill puts a collar around the neck of the CRTC and hands the leash to the government through regulations. Not only will the government have the power to review the CRTC's decisions but the Governor in Council will be able to direct the CRTC on broad policy measures. The Governor in Council will be able to exempt any class of carrier from the regulations contained in the act. We in this party are not prepared to give that kind of authority to government.
This bill will make the CRTC no more than an advisory body to the Governor in Council rather than an independent watch-dog of public interest. During the pre-study of this bill, the Senate committee noted that forbearance lies at the heart of Bill C-62. Indeed it does.
This government shamelessly promotes competition simply for competition's sake. This bill will ensure that the CRTC has no choice but to follow the government's lead. If this bill is passed, consumers will be at the whim of an industry trying to maximize its profits. The public will be put once again on the back burner.
Look at what is taking place right now regarding some of the things that have happened because of decisions that were made. On April 15 Alberta Government Telephones, AGT, announced over 1,000 job cuts. The president, Don Lowry, said that the job cuts to be phased in over nine months are largely in response to the bid by Unitel Communications to compete in the lucrative long distance market.
Government Orders
Look at the job cuts in BC Tel. Brian Canfield, president of BC Tel, announced on April 16 that his company was working to reduce staff size by 4 per cent this year through incentives. BC Tel has already seen 422 employees accept voluntary separation packages. BC Tel earned $205.7 million last year, which is up $2.3 million from the year before.
Mr. Canfield said: "The entry into the Canadian market of U.S. phone giant AT&T which bought 20 per cent of Unitel after the CRTC last year approved Unitel's entry into the long distance field added weight to BC Tel's argument that inflated long distance rates should not be used to subsidize artificially low rates".
There we have the kinds of things that are already taking place in the telecommunications industry. If we allow this government to proceed with this piece of legislation in its present form or with the procedures that it is trying to follow through deregulation and competition, then only the people of Canada will suffer.
This is especially so in the remote areas where people with their ordinary telephones are trying to communicate with each other. They will be the big losers. The big multinational corporations that this government seems to want to support to bring about these kinds of changes would get ahead.
Also, this would give the government the authority to override the one very historic area that it has had: the CRTC. The CRTC was an independent group. As much as we may have seen the weaknesses in it, it was a group that would hear submissions, make decisions and bring them forward.
We will not have that if this piece of legislation is passed. We are opposed to this legislation. We will do everything we can to ensure that proper and adequate witnesses are brought before the committee and their views are heard.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I was not quite prepared to intervene at this point but I will certainly take this opportunity to say a few words regarding Bill C-62, a bill dealing with the telecommunications industry in the Canadian economy.

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
We are dealing today with an aspect of the Canadian economy that has been on the cutting edge of change and dynamic development for many years. We have been world leaders in a variety of areas of telecommunications. It has been a Canadian growth industry and continues to be a growth industry. It is a great employer. The telecommunications industry directly employs 125,000 people in our country and accounts for up to 8.6 per cent of our GDP after inflation.
Change in terms of its legislative mandate has been in the offing for many years and for many years we have called for a modem day approach to the development of telecommunications, recognizing that our telecommunications industry is currently governed by the antiquated Railway Act. We have called for the government to change this.
Over the years we have heard various ministers give their views on what the change ought to be. Today we are beginning a discussion on Bill C-62, which is this government's effort to fill the policy vacuum when it comes to the very dynamic field of telecommunications.
To say this is long overdue is not really selling the point very adequately because subsequent ministers have been promising this action. I want to at least acknowledge that the present minister of telecommunications has actually brought forward legislation. It was first introduced in the spring of 1992, many months ago. Now we are beginning the debate at second reading as this session of Parliament begins to essentially wind down in anticipation of the general election.
This legislation takes the telecommunications sector and places it on the sacred altar of privatization and deregulation. We have seen a number of other sectors placed on this altar for sacrifice such as the trucking business in Canada a few years ago. The feeling was that if we deregulated and privatized the trucking industry we would see a dynamic sector emerge. Jobs would be created and the Canadian trucking companies would prosper and benefit.
At that time a lot of us had contrary views. Many people in the trucking industry had contrary views and wondered how a deregulated environment that was being proposed, as well as the privatization that occurred
in the transportation sector generally would be helpful. The result has been that literally hundreds of Canadian trucking companies have gone bankrupt over the last number of years and tens of thousands of drivers and others associated with the industry have lost their jobs. It has become a much less competitive industry.
The airline industry is one of the more recent sacrifices on the altar of privatization and deregulation. Once again it was proposed that a deregulated environment would result in increased competition, better service to the consumer and reduced fares and rates. The result is that an airline has just announced in the last few hours that it is going out of business because it is bankrupt. The two major carriers in Canada are in bankruptcy stages of one kind or another and unable to compete in this deregulated environment.
If I can use my own community of Kamloops as an example, two airlines are now competing head to head for service. This was welcome news because we thought it would result in a greater variety of services and an abundance of departure times to Vancouver. The result is that two aircraft fly into the Kamloops airport at the same time and leave for the same city at the same time.
There is head to head competition but no increased opportunities for travellers and we have seen the rates increase month after month. Any citizens who wish to fly from Kamloops to Vancouver or Calgary should forget about it unless they are independently wealthy or have some kind of business expense account. No one can afford the kinds of rates the airlines are now charging in this new competitive environment.
The Minister of Communications is saying the telecommunications sector is our new sacrifice to lay upon the altar. Who will benefit from this? Surely someone must benefit.
My colleague for Kootenay East has made an excellent presentation as to why he feels this initiative is inappropriate. On many occasions I have listened to my colleague for Okanagan-Shuswap explain to anyone who would listen why this initiative is not in the best interest of Canadians. One has to ask who will benefit from this.
April 19, 1993

I think it is fair to say that Canadians generally will not benefit but some large transnational telecommunications company will. AT&T will eventually be one of the main beneficiaries of this initiative. Those companies that are now prepared to come in and cream off a very lucrative long distance market will be the beneficiaries.
The average Canadian and the average small business operator in Canada will be the losers. I want to explain why that is the case but before doing that I would like to read a few figures into the record. We are not leaders in this matter of telephone and telecommunications deregulation. Other countries have done this before us and we need look no further than the United States.
Some of the leading political voices in the United States said a number of years ago it would benefit the average American if they deregulated the telephone industry, which they did, but the average consumer did not benefit from this initiative.
In the United States, residential telephone rates have doubled in some cases and tripled, quadrupled or increased five times in others. I will give an example as of today and use my own community because it will vary somewhat across the country.
In Kamloops, the basic residential rate for telephone use is $10.05 per month. Naturally, the cost of other services is added to that amount. In other communities it is less. I know in Thunder Bay where there is a private telephone company, the rates are less than $8 per month. We have enjoyed a regulated environment in Canada for many years and we are viewed world-wide as having one of the more sophisticated telephone systems found anywhere.
Recent surveys have found that 92 per cent of Canadians are very satisfied with their telephone service. This goes back to the old adage: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If there is a 92 per cent satisfaction rate with just about anything in the country today, I think it would probably be a good indication to just keep our hands off and stay out of it. Obviously the regulated telecommunications telephone business in Canada has been working very well and 92 per cent is not bad.
Obviously the government has decided to work on behalf of somebody in our society to change this. Let us
Government Orders
make some comparisons. The Kamloops basic rate per month is $10.05. Let me just randomly pick out a number of American centres. In Jacksonville, Alabama they pay $43.48 a month; in Phoenix, Arizona, they pay $24.36; in Little Rock, Arkansas they pay $32.01 and in Denver, Colorado they pay $32.39 a month. In Wilmington, Delaware, they pay $22.30 a month; Fort Lauderdale, Florida, $29.10 a month; Twin Falls, Idaho, $28.56 a month. Here is a good one, in Indianapolis, Indiana, they pay $47.40 a month; in Sioux City, Iowa, they pay $36.60 a month; in Louisville, Kentucky, they pay $47.76 a month.
I think you get the idea, Mr. Speaker. I have a list here of dozens and dozens of communities from a small survey that was done to get some idea of what has happened in American communities as a result of deregulation. I think it is fair to predict that a few years from now the people of Kamloops will not be paying a rate of $10.05 a month. They will be probably paying $34 a month as in Tulsa, Oklahoma, or $37 a month as in Eugene, Oregon. That is the reality.
Let us be clear what we are doing here. The government has opened the door to allow companies to ask for rate increases so the average consumer in this country, the average small business operator in Canada will see their rates double, triple or quadruple over the next number of years. That is the obvious direction we are taking.
In the Wall Street Journal a little while ago there was a full page ad by AT&T, the big multinational telecommunications company, which included a map. The ad said: "Here's a map of North America with a border presently between Canada and the United States". As soon as this legislation goes through we can take an eraser and erase this border because Canada and the United States are going to be simply one happy integrated area as far as AT&T is concerned. In other words this is another way of describing the free trade agreement.
Now the North American free trade agreement is accompanying this legislation, Bill C-62, through Parliament. They are going side by side in a parallel process through Parliament. We know that the NAFTA agreement includes Mexico.

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
Let me make another projection. Not too many months from now when we dial the operator to get information or dial the telephone company to check out the nature of our bill, the person responding will say something like Buenos dias, senor, because that operator will be operating out of northern Mexico. After all, if a telephone operator in Canada is paid $16 an hour and the same operator with the same skills is paid 60 cents an hour in the Maquiladora zone in Mexico, why on earth would an unregulated company not simply take advantage of the lowest labour costs possible?
AT&T is not an unintelligent company when it comes to making a profit. When it can pay a telephone operator or someone working in its operation in whatever capacity 60 cents an hour or less, I suspect there will be a tendency for it to do just that.
Rates for the average Canadian will increase and those people presently employed in the telecommunications sector of our economy here in Canada will lose their jobs in the future because they will not be able to compete with 67 cents an hour out of northern Mexico. Or let us be very generous and talk about an operator or employee of a telecommunications company in Canada competing with a person with the same skills making $6 an hour in Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas or New Mexico. It simply cannot be done. Not only will fare increases escalate, but job losses will also escalate as a result of this initiative.
We oppose this legislation to say the least. We, as New Democrats, have long felt, as many ministers over the years have suggested, that the way to develop our telecommunications industry, create world technological leadership in this sector and be on the leading edge of change, growth and dynamic development is through a regulated sector of telecommunications. In other words, there must be sophisticated, progressive, updated regulation of this very critical sector. That is the way to proceed and not what we see in Bill C-62.
There are many reasons why we do not want to proceed at this point with Bill C-62 at this second reading stage. Second reading stage is when we talk about and debate the principle of the bill and whether or not we want to proceed even with the principle that is being discussed and introduced here in the House of Commons. The Minister of Communications and his staff have been very generous in being straightforward
with the people of Canada because they have indicated that this bill will undergo substantial amendments during the committee stage. The work of the other place points out a whole number of shortfalls so the minister has been very generous in his comments and said that, yes, major changes must occur.
Will these major changes result in changes to the principle that we are debating here today? What are these major changes? What is this wide array of amendments that the minister wants to present and propose?
Not knowing what they are, one can only assume that perhaps what we are discussing here is not going to be what is in the final bill or what the government plans to proceed with. Therefore the process is open to some question. We believe that the minister should be a bit more forthright in explaining just what it is the government plans to change and to what extent it plans to alter the provisions of this legislation.
The other reason that we oppose this-I rather tangentially referred to it earlier-is the fact that this will result in significant rate increases for Canadians.
I wonder if this is the time when the Government of Canada should be passing legislation that it knows will result in additional costs to Canadian consumers and Canadian citizens generally at a time of a call for restraint, when governments are calling for cutbacks in budgets and when governments are calling for all Canadians to tighten their belts. A lot of Canadians do not even have a belt left any more. They have tightened them so many times there are no notches left.
The government comes along and says: "At a time when we are calling for cuts, restraint and thought in terms of the small business person, we are introducing legislation that is going to definitely result in cost increases". It seems that the minister has not been privy to discussions concerning what one hand is doing or saying obviously because here with this initiative we will see additional costs for the consumer.
There are other reasons why we oppose this legislation. My colleague from Kootenay East explained in some detail the value of cross-subsidization. The charges for the users in those areas of Canada where the intensity of telephone use is very high help offset the cost to the more rural or small town user. In other words, in order for people to have relatively similar access to
April 19, 1993

telephones, there is cross-subsidization so that the heavy users subsidize those where the costs are increased.
This has served Canada well. We are the second largest country in the world geographically. We are spread out between three major coasts. We have one of the highest rates of telephone usage in the world. One of the reasons is that people living in the small towns and rural areas of Canada were subsidized by those living in the urban areas or the more urban corridors of communication within our regulated environment for so many years. This has served our country well. However, this will no longer be the case as a result of this legislation. That principle is being eroded here and that is another reason why we oppose it.
You have given me a signal, Mr. Speaker, indicating that my time is now limited. I simply want to conclude by saying that traditionally we have had in Canada an excellent telephone system. We have an excellent history in terms of the development of telecommunications. It has served us well. Ninety-two per cent of Canadians like the present system. I think many of us have had many reasons to be proud of the developments within our telecommunications sector for many years. We have hard-working men and women in this sector. There are tens of thousands of them who would like to keep their jobs and continue serving Canadians in this particular profession and line of work.
For that reason we will oppose this legislation when it comes to a vote and encourage the Minister of Communications, the minister responsible for this particular legislation, to take this back to his caucus and cabinet colleagues. He should say that this is not the time to increase rates across the country or to introduce legislation that would result in job losses to so many more Canadians, but that this is to be set on the back burner permanently.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, this certainly is a bill whose time has come. Unfortunately it is also a bill that is quite seriously flawed.
The previous speaker for the New Democrats stated unequivocally that they will be voting against the bill. While I understand that, I say that from our point of view we believe the bill must go to committee where it can be
Government Orders
reviewed and substantially amended to reflect the needs both of industry and of the people of Canada.
This bill has taken rather a long time from its own introduction well over a year ago by the hon. minister or from the first statement from this government in 1984 when the then Minister of Finance, in an economic statement, said there was a clear need for national telecommunications to take advantage of opportunities presented by a rapidly changing technology and a demand for Canadians for new telecommunication services. As I said, it has been nine years since that statement. The phrase labouring and bringing forth a mouse comes to mind because in nine years this bill is the best the government has been able to come up with. This bill, as already stated by my colleague from Mount Royal, is seriously flawed. Consequently, in our party we are prepared to allow the bill to go to committee at this stage. However, I say in the wake of the member for Mount Royal that we serve notice that we expect to see major amendments in committee.
Bill C-62 would establish in law a Canadian telecommunications policy, extend the regulatory authority of the CRTC to provincial Crown corporations and provide new powers with respect to the regulation of telecommunications. It is designed to give the force of law to a Canadian telecommunication policy, consolidate and modernize existing statutes and respond to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Alberta Government Telephones Act with regard to the AGT clause.
It is necessary, of course, to put forward some regulation in today's ever changing telecommunications industry. Telecommunication industries employ over 100,000 Canadians and generate over $20 billion in revenue. In essence, this industry is one of Canada's key links to the globalization of markets and the world of high technology. It is, of course, also an area in which Canadians can be justly proud of the developments that are homegrown in Canada.
I am reminded of a visit last year that the Subcommittee on the Status of Women made to the United States when we were doing our study on breast cancer. We were visiting the Office of Women's Health in Washington and a conference was set up with the Centre For Disease Control in Atlanta. It was a teleconference. There was a

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
large television set at one end of a boardroom table where we could see the people from Atlanta and there was a similar set-up in Atlanta. After the meeting was over, one of the Americans said to me: "How do you like our technology?" I noted the Northern Telecom logo on the television set and I said: "You will have to excuse me, but in actual fact that is our technology". I think it was something that all of us there felt very happy about.
However, it is not enough to rest on our laurels in the area of telecommunications. The industry and Canadians deserve the best bill available. They deserve the best law that reflects what the industry needs and what the population needs. This is not happening.
We support the bill's attempt at unifying a national jurisdiction over telecommunications. A new and stronger piece of legislation would affirm the essential role that telecommunications must have in the maintenance of Canada's identify and sovereignty. These things are only sensible. They are so self-evident that they almost go without saying. However, I have learned in over four years in this place that very little tends to go without saying. It affirms Canada's commitment to the industry as well as the industry's role to provide a world class product and service to Canadians.
I will get into the specifics of this bill. Clause 2 attempts to define the various players or carriers and transmission facilities in the telecommunications industry. My party and the Senate pre-study report, which was presented in June 1992, believe that more consideration should be given to these definitions to clear up any ambiguities. One such example is how a common carrier, or one that relies on a Canadian carrier, should be dealt with.
The CRTC submitted this during the Senate hearings: "The ambiguity in the definition must be removed by clearly setting out what is meant to be included and excluded".
Clause 14 of the bill makes it necessary for the federal government to consult with the provincial government when a decision "would have a substantial impact on a Canadian carrier that was the principal telecommunications carrier in that province". This clause of the bill must not allow either level of government sufficient
power to paralyse an effective telecommunications policy.
Part II of the bill makes provisions to establish the criteria a Canadian carrier must meet in order to be eligible to hold a licence to operate. Any policy direction taken by the federal government with respect to this must again ensure that it contains a strong commitment to the telecommunications industry's future. In its commitment to the telecommunications industry's future, it must ensure that it is a Canadian future.
Under this proposal the communications minister would have the power to decide who will be licensed. My party does not agree that the minister should create for himself as many new powers as he does in this clause. This move essentially adds further steps to the regulatory process and would in effect slow the process down. There is also no requirement for the minister to give reasons for licensing decisions. Far be it from me to suggest that the current minister would ever make such a decision without giving the best, clearest and most well-explained reasons at any given time. Here I am complimenting him all over the place and he is not even listening. However, I think that the requirement for reasons in licensing decisions is absolutely essential.
Part III of Bill C-62 would establish the framework with which the CRTC would be authorized to regulate the telecommunications services offered by a Canadian carrier. One of the main powers assigned to the CRTC by the bill is that of forbearance. The CRTC would be able to exercise forbearance only after it had determined that a sufficient degree of competition existed to protect the user's interests.
Again, in my party we want to make sure that this new power does not result in the deregulation of our telecommunications industry. Now that competition among carriers is on the increase it must be recognized that the consumer must not end up the loser or bear unnecessary inflated charges.
Clause 46 of Bill C-62 allows the CRTC to prohibit or regulate any type of unsolicited telecommunications, unsolicited telephone calls and faxes. The key object of this clause must be to recognize that telemarketing companies have a right to do business while at the same time protecting Canadians from unwanted phone calls.
April 19, 1993

Clause 46 does not go far enough to reconcile these two conflicting points. The key objective of any comprehensive telecommunications policy should be reliability, affordability, quality and accessibility for all regions of this country.
I put emphasis on the question of accessibility because accessibility and level of service in the telecommunications industry is something of which Canadians can be justly proud. It is also something upon which Canadians depend and depend upon very strongly.
Every one of us in this Chamber knows that we are unlike almost any other country in the world because of our huge geography and small population. The telecommunications industry probably more so than almost anywhere else on earth is a true lifeline for literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
It is essential and will remain essential to the country's development, yet it has taken the government over nine years to finally act. The nine years of labouring has not brought forth the kind of a bill that makes anyone in this House want to stand up and cheer. I suppose a few of the people on the other side want to stand up and cheer but I have not seen them do it.
We in the Liberal Party want to make sure there are no more delays in the establishment of a national telecommunications policy and in the legislation to build it up, but it must be the right legislation.
This bill needs revision and further clarification. It is too open ended and too ambiguous in many of its sections. It needs fundamental revision. For example, clause 14 makes it necessary for the federal government to consult with the provincial government when a decision would have a substantial impact on a Canadian carrier that was the principal telecommunications carrier in that province. The difficulty is that the bill is not strong enough to prevent one level of government possibly paralysing an effective policy.
The difficulty is that in the history of federal and provincial relations, the possibility of this taking place is not particularly far-fetched.
In establishing a policy of telecommunications, we are
Government Orders
all aware that certain expectations have been set and that there are certain areas in which Canadians have such a vested interest that to leave them with a bill that is too broad and too ambiguous does the kind of disservice that we just do not need to put up with.
As I said before, we support this bill going to committee but at the same time we want assurances that changes are planned. Virtually every person in the telecommunications industry that has made a comment has said these changes are necessary. Since the bill was introduced, these changes have not been forthcoming.
We have had problems with the fact that the minister and the government delayed the bill for well over a year. It was the government that delayed the bill, not the opposition. The minister has had the opportunity to build agreement on a national level and he has not done so. Various and sundry other projects and reports have been done and been available but no action has been taken on them.
Consequently in the time since this bill was first introduced in February 1992, we feel that a lot of time has been wasted and a lot of water has gone over the dam which could have been used in making it a better mix and a better reflection of what both the industry and the people of Canada would like to see in a national telecommunications policy. A bill which could do that would have been good for the industry, good for business and good for Canadians as a whole.
We are not talking about delay. Indeed the opposition has not in any way attempted to delay the bill. If anything, we have been urging from the sidelines faster and better policy development in this area. Had we wanted to delay it, given this government's fondness for the use of closure, the best we would have been able to do would be to pipe dream a delay. That is not the response here.
The telecommunications industry is a serious and important industry to the make-up of this country. We are not going to sit here as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and give approval to something which we think is inferior.

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
We believe that the parliamentary process can create something better. We on this side of the House, led by the hon. member for Mount Royal as our senior critic, are prepared to do everything we can to ensure this bill is the best it can be. We would like to hear from the government and most particularly from the minister that it is the intention of the government to clear up some of these problems. In the 14 months since the bill was first introduced, we have waited in vain for some small indication that this was going to be the response of the government. It has not happened.
Again I say we are serving notice that in committee we will be seeking these amendments. I cannot say or else because unfortunately the system is such that we do not have an or else. I think in the interests of the country and in the interests of the telecommunications industry it is the very least we can expect from the government.
The telecommunication industry is vital to the way this country works. It is vital in the employment of tens of thousands of Canadians. It is vital in the revenues in the billions that it generates. It is clearly a strategic industry for the Canadian economy. It is clearly part and parcel of the new Canadian identity as we face a globalized economy and as we face competition in international markets.
We are entering the age of communication as we are told by experts in all fields on any given day at any given time. Therefore, it is even more essential we not walk into this new age of telecommunications covered with the shreds of inferior legislation. What we need is the best legislation that the Government of Canada can produce for the industry and for the people.
I will close by saying this. The telecommunications industry is so much a part of what makes Canada the country it is and what will make Canada the country it can be that we on this side of the House serve notice to the minister and the government that we will be coming to committee prepared to battle down to the wire for
every one of the amendments we believe to be utterly crucial.
I expect to be there holding the coat of the member for Mount Royal who is a formidable opponent in these matters. She will be our major spokesperson. I can only say that if these amendments do not pass, if these amendments are not brought into law, if the government does not see that its bill is flawed and makes it better legislation for Canadians, then the sorrow will be not just to the industry and the people of Canada, it will be very much to the sorrow of the members of this House.
.(1355 )


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-62.1 must begin by complimenting the Minister of Communications for this bill. In fact as I was reading the over-all objectives of the bill, I said to myself that I wished over the last few years the stated objectives of this bill had been used as the guiding principle for some of the other policies coming from the government. It is quite out of character with other legislation that has been put forward by this Conservative government.
I believe it is important for Canadians to understand the over-all objectives. I want to read directly from clause 7 of the bill which states:
It is hereby affirmed that telecommunications performs an essential role in the maintenance of Canada's identity and sovereignty and that the Canadian telecommunications policy has as its objectives
(a)	to facilitate the orderly development in Canada of a telecommunications system that serves to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, social, political and economic fabric of Canada;
We have had many other bills brought before the House in the last while which talk about national standards and national objectives. I think of the specific bill referring to our CBC and the national emphasis was actually removed.
The other objectives:
(b)	to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible in both urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada;
(c)	to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness, at the national and international levels, of Canadian telecommunications;
(d)	to promote the ownership and control of Canadian carriers by Canadians;
(e)	to promote the use of Canadian transmission facilities for telecommunications within Canada and between Canada and points outside Canada;
(f)	to foster increased reliance on market forces for the provision of telecommunications services;
(g)	to stimulate research and development-
April 19, 1993

(h)	to respond to the economic and social requirements of users of telecommunications services, including the protection of the privacy of individuals.
I do not think anyone in this country would argue with any one of those stated objectives. My concern is that the actual stated objectives will be carried through in every aspect of the bill. I noted that my colleague from Mount Royal has said that in committee we are going to be going over every aspect of the bill to make sure that the various sections meet those objectives.
So often in the past few years this government has dismantled national institutions, dismantled the federal presence in favour of the regional force being a much stronger force. In the exercise of doing that we have decentralized the national government to a point where the regional forces are now causing it to be very difficult to govern this country.
Our telecommunications system, our technology, has been the envy of the world for many years. I think of the Middle East and what the Bell telephone exercise has been in Saudi Arabia and other places there. We have always been on the leading edge. One of the reasons why we have been on the leading edge is that we have had strong centralized, organized control of this sector of our economy. There is great hope for new job creation in this sector, but if the minister does not follow through in every aspect of this bill with the over-all stated objectives, then he will know that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has an onerous task ahead of him as he completes his budget. He is to be commended for the
extensive pre-budget consultation that he has held across Canada.
It is a major challenge to reduce and eliminate our deficit. The problem is not just ours within this Chamber, all Canadians must share the challenge of balancing our wants with our needs and both of those with our ability to pay. If we learned nothing else from last year's referendum we should have learned that Canadians think for themselves and want to be involved in decisions that affect them.
With this in mind I invited the people in my constituency to offer suggestions on the budget and they responded. In a random but extensive survey they told me that they want restraint and no tax increase. I was told that transfers for health care, education and seniors' pensions are too important to be reduced, while regional development, special interest groups, unemployment insurance, Crown corporations and even farm aid need to be re-evaluated.
I have a strong message from Red Deer, one that tells me Canadians are ready to accept the tough decisions that must be made.


MONTREAL ECONOMY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, last week, three separate reports showed how severely the Montreal region has been affected by the recession.
First, according to Statistics Canada, Montreal has now set a new record, with more than 22 per cent of its citizens living below the poverty line. Second, a report by the World Health Organization states that the living conditions of street children in Montreal are similar to those in the Third World. As if that were not enough, a study by a committee that included experts from the city of Montreal indicates that 40 per cent of the city's thousands of homeless people are under 18.
In a statement about the intolerable situation in this country today, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops said that society's moral fibre was undermined as a result of the Conservative economic policies of the past 10 years.
No matter who wins at the leadership convention, Canadians will massively reject the Conservatives who are responsible for all this suffering.

April 19, 1993
[English)


LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago this spring John F. Kennedy was President of the United States, Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister of Great Britain, John Diefenbaker was Prime Minister of Canada and the Toronto Maple Leafs won the Stanley Cup.
I would like to bring to the attention of this House that yesterday marked the 30th anniversary of the first election of the Leader of the Opposition to this House. I am sure all members will join me in congratulating him on his many years of service to his party and to our country.
During those years this hon. gentleman has held many high offices, none higher than the one he holds today. There is one higher that has eluded him. Alas, my sense of history tells me it will continue to elude him. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am a great prognosticator so you should listen to that point.
Nevertheless, as we approach the election that will, I suspect, mark the twilight of his career I invite all hon. members to join me in paying tribute to the leader of the Liberal Party on this auspicious anniversary.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, taking barley sales to the United States out of Wheat Board jurisdiction is a return to the bad old days of grain marketing. A Conservative-Liberal union government created the first single-desk Wheat Board during World War I largely to save grain traders who had sold more paper than there was wheat. Farmers quickly learned the benefits of single-desk selling but the government took that privilege away for another 15 years until a dying Conservative government introduced a voluntary board in 1935.
The voluntary board clearly did not work and was made compulsory in the early 1940s for wheat, oats and barley. I know the Minister of Agriculture and the Conservative Party have never liked single-desk selling.
To even consider taking barley sales to the U.S. away from the board demonstrates that. When I see the government deliberately undermining Wheat Board marketing power, which means lower barley prices to farmers, I can no longer believe the government's protestations of support for the Wheat Board, supply management or farmers. Its actions speak louder than its words.


BARRIERE LAKE ALGONQUINS
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in 1991, a trilateral agreement was reached on an integrated management plan for renewable resources, covering forestry and wildlife in an area of about 10,000 square kilometres, partly located in the La Verendrye wildlife reserve and surrounding area in Quebec.
The Barrire Lake Algonquins were proud of the work done by all parties to this agreement and, personally, I see it as a good example of how they and both levels of government were able to co-operate to ensure that aboriginal people can look forward to a better future and do so within the context of a new relationship.
Today, the Algonquins have former Liberal Environment Minister Clifford Lincoln as their negotiator. On April 16 Mr. Lincoln said this went beyond the question of logging operations in La Verendiye Park. Now the First Nations are involved.
What a fuss about a 20 or 60 metre strip of forest.


FISHERIES
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, where is the minister of fisheries hiding? For months he has been promising that by April there would be a federal compensation package to support communities in eastern Nova Scotia devastated by last December's quota cuts. April is more than half over and there has still been no announcement.
April 19, 1993

A task force from the Nova Scotia government proposed a plan to him a month ago. Now not even his Nova Scotia counterpart, Mr. Legere, can get him on the line.
Yesterday more than 200 fishermen and plant workers gathered once again at a public meeting in Canso to call for an end to this uncertainty. Their patience is wearing thin. Fishermen need to know whether there is any point in putting their boats in the water. Plant workers need to know what the future holds for them. They want the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to come to Canso and explain what his government has in store for them.
The minister knows what needs to go into this plan. Will he end the uncertainty gnawing away at this community and at so many other communities in Atlantic Canada so they can get on with their lives?


NIAGARA GREENHOUSES
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, the beauty and fragrance of fresh flowers have returned to Niagara regional council chambers. More than 200 plants and cut flowers filled the chambers for the introduction of the Greater Niagara Greenhouse Growers' Directory and Buyer's Guide, a Niagara Region Development Corporation project.
The industry employs almost 2,200 people working under more than 11 million square feet of glass and generates multimillion dollar amounts of revenue. Niagara greenhouses grow 17 species of cut flowers. In addition, growers are recognized for their excellence in producing millions of poinsettias, vegetables, nursery stock and landscaping plants. Major markets include the Niagara region, southern Ontario, Quebec and the northeastern United States. Annual sales are $160 million.
Seven Niagara greenhouse growers have been in business for more than 50 years and two-thirds have been growing in Niagara for more than 20 years. Congratulations to the growers in Niagara.


WARSAW GHETTO UPRISING
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, April 19 serves as a testimony to bravery in the face of barbarism and the triumph of the human spirit over mass
oppression, starvation, disease and the evil perpetrated by the Nazi movement.
The Warsaw ghetto uprising took place 50 years ago and today we recognize the heroic members of the Jewish resistance who rose up in defiance of cruel tyranny. Jewish resistance fighters, with support from the Polish underground, fought a desperate battle with no hope of winning. This tragic revolt is a reminder that we must never again tolerate regimes based on racism or ethnic cleansing.
In honour of those who died in the Warsaw ghetto I call upon the international community to oppose institutionalized oppression in all its forms, regardless of race, religion or ethnocultural background.


NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to this week, April 18 to 24, as it is National Volunteer Week.
This is an opportunity for all of us to express thanks and to join communities across Canada in giving recognition to the more than 13 million Canadians who volunteer their time, skills and energies. Volunteers have become an essential and vital part of Canadian society and a major economic resource.
Volunteers often fill gaps by performing indispensable tasks that would not otherwise be done. Organizations, such as hospitals, libraries, schools, food banks, community associations, and a whole variety of both domestic and internationally concerned organizations, would all suffer greatly without this volunteer support. The average volunteer devotes 191 hours a year to volunteer work. Altogether Canadians give more than one billion hours of their time to voluntary organizations. The collective value of volunteer time is more than $13 billion a year.
It is appropriate for us to say thank you to everyone who works for or supports a volunteer organization. Through their work volunteers build a more caring and compassionate Canada. Their generosity assures that many organizations, programs and activities continue because without volunteers' commitment they would falter or cease to exist.

April 19, 1993


THE PRIME MINISTER
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there is a new tour that is going to occur shortly. It is called the "Hire Me, Here is My C.V. Tour" of the Prime Minister. Guess who will foot the bill for this tour? You are right, Mr. Speaker, it will be Canadian taxpayers again.
In 1991 the Canadian taxpayer sponsored the Asian tour at a cost of $1 million, or $80,000 a day. This new tour is going to be at bargain basement prices. It will cost only $50,000 a day.
Tour organizers are said to be working hard to improve the show of the advance performance in Florida last week because the Prime Minister did not meet expectations when he met Mickey Mouse.
Canadians are sure glad to know our present Prime Minister is finally on the way out and they will not have to sponsor tours again because rumour has it that the next tour would have been named the "Fly Me To the Moon Tour", in honour of the spaced out colleagues in his caucus who are seeking the Tory leadership.


NATIONAL DEFICIT
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, my constituents have made it clear that they see government deficits as the major issue for all levels of government to address.
Recently, several provincial governments have announced measures to reduce expenditures. These steps are similar to those taken by the federal government over the past number of years.
Based on comments I have received throughout Wild Rose, the federal government must continue on a path of fiscal responsibility to become even leaner and more efficient.


WATER QUALITY
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, more than a tonne and a half of persistent toxic chemicals daily enter Lake Ontario including more than a tonne of lead, 400 kilograms of arsenic and more than a kilogram of PCBs.
For the Niagara River it is no longer adequate just to study how to cut toxic contaminants in half by 1996. Action is needed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has introduced tough regulations aimed at protecting human health and the ecosystem. Unfortunately there is little progress on Canada's side.
Two years ago the agreement between Ottawa and Ontario to implement the water quality agreement expired. The government has not renegotiated this agreement. We urge this government to conclude negotiations on a new federal-provincial agreement respecting Great Lakes water quality. This is the minimum required to match action with rhetoric.


DENTAL HEALTH MONTH
Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to remind the House that April is dental health month.
Good dental health is important for our well-being and our looks. Bad teeth and gums affect our ability to eat properly and lower our self-esteem. We know that we must see a dentist every six months, but do we really know everything that must be done to keep our teeth in good health?
During dental health month, the Canadian Dental Association and its provincial chapters will help us increase our knowledge of dental health with exhibits in shopping centres and other health promotion activities.
So please join me in wishing the Canadian Dental Association and the provincial dental associations a very successful dental health month.


WARSAW GHETTO UPRISING
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on April 19, 1943 Nazi forces entered the Warsaw ghetto to kill or remove all of its occupants. Rather than surrendering the Jews in the ghetto rose up against the Nazi forces determined to fight the inevitable for as long as they could. After 27 days the uprising was crushed. Most of
April 19, 1993______________________COMMONS DEBATES___________________________
Oral Questions
the ghetto's 60,000 people were killed and the few


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear, thousand that survived were sent to death camps.
Fifty years later the Warsaw ghetto uprising and the heroism of the men, women and children who stood up against the attacking Nazis remains as an unforgettable example of human courage in the face of unspeakable evil. It was only one event in the nightmare of the Holocaust which saw the murder of six million Jews. The Warsaw uprising continues to serve as a powerful reminder of that systematic, terrible slaughter.
In commemorating the Warsaw uprising we must reaffirm our commitment to human rights. This 50th anniversary must not only be a time to remember but must also be a call to action. We must translate "never again" into concrete anti-racist action. We must redouble our efforts to fight racism and anti-Semitism in Canada and wherever it occurs throughout the world.


PEACEKEEPING
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on Good Friday in Victoria I was honoured to take part in welcome home ceremonies for the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry returning from peacekeeping duties in Croatia. Local residents are extremely proud of the work our peacekeeping forces do abroad.
Yesterday 135 Canadian soldiers received a hero's welcome in the war-torn city of Srebrenica. Canada's peacekeeping forces in Bosnia have entered the besieged city to evacuate injured Muslims and disarm the government garrison.
Our hearts are with these brave soldiers working amidt a tenuous ceasefire in this bitter conflict. While the ceasefire holds in Srebrenica, the fighting continues unabated elsewhere in Bosnia. Once again Canada's peacekeeping forces are front and centre on the world stage doing their best to protect and save lives.
I know all members of the House will join me in wishing our peacekeepers a safe and secure return to Canada at the end of their tour of duty. We are proud of the work they do on behalf of us all.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question.
Last week, the Minister of Finance published a document announcing for the 10th or 12th time that the government's priority was to reduce the deficit, when we know very well that, for the last nine years, the government has run up deficits of over $30 billion a year on average.
In presenting the budget in the next few days, does the government intend to cut a $5.8 billion program to buy helicopters for the cold war with the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union no longer exists? Will the government accept the opposition's opinion and not buy these helicopters?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the minister did release a document that talks about economic policy in a world of change and about the deficit.
We know that under our friends, the deficit started from nearly zero and grew to $38.5 billion, an increase of 300 per cent. Under this government, it has been cut in half, in terms of the gross national product, and has remained at $30 billion or $32 billion, but that is still too high. We have made very substantial progress in reducing the deficit and we did so by reducing the increase in program spending. Over a 15-year period, program spending had risen 13.8 per cent a year on average. This was reduced to 4.1 per cent over eight years and it is now 2.8 per cent. This is a spectacular turnaround.
Hopefully, this will continue with the finance minister's new budget, the deficit will eventually be eliminated and there will be a reasonable and effective approach to maintaining and reducing the national debt. That will not happen tomorrow but we are now going in the right direction.

April 19, 1993
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has refused to answer the question concerning helicopters.
I would like to point out the Minister of National Defence last week said that if one asks the Department of National Defence, it will give programs it will cancel first before cancelling the program for helicopters.
I would like to know from the Prime Minister why there are some programs within the Department of National Defence that make even less sense than buying helicopters to fight the cold war. When will the government act on these programs, if they exist, to ensure that the Department of National Defence or other departments are not spending money like drunken sailors?


An hon. member:: If anybody knows about that it is you.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, given the record of my hon. friend in spending government money I would not want to offend any sailor, drunken or otherwise. My hon. friend should be careful.


An hon. member:: Very careful.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I say this with respect. His record, for example as President of the Treasury Board, is probably the worst fiasco in public spending in the history of Canada. The figures are there. We would be happy to table them and have a debate precisely on that.
With regard to the expenditures of the defence department, we have had the debate-


Mr. Dingwall:: More sleazy appointments?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says "more sleazy appointments". We just appointed-


David Charles Dingwall: By you?


Martin Brian Mulroney: By me. We just appointed Lucie Pepin, a former Liberal member of Parliament, to a 10-year appointment to the National Parole Board.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Again the Prime Minister is evading the question. I asked him a very simple question.
Last week the Minister of National Defence said that she might reduce the number of helicopters from 50 to a lower number. A month ago she said that we should not cut one of these helicopters.
I want to know from the government when it will scrap this program. We do not need it at all. It is $5.8 billion of waste. We need the money to cut the deficit or do something to create some growth in Canada.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that this project does is create 45,000 person-years of employment in Canada in an area of high technology.
I would point out to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the Department of National Defence has had its budget cut by $12 billion since 1989. Clearly the government has set priorities in expenditures and the Department of National Defence has cut back.
It is also important to point out that the choice is not between spending this money on the helicopters and zero; it is between spending this money on helicopters of 1990 technology for Canadian men and women in the services and throwing away $2.5 billion to extend the life of 40-year old helicopters after which time, five or ten years at the maximum, we would have to face the question of replacing them.
If that is Liberal economics, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we want any on this side of the House.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
His Minister of National Defence has said she can eliminate the deficit in five years. His Minister of the Environment has said he can do it in only four years. I want to ask the Prime Minister who does he agree with, the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of the Environment? Or does he agree with his Minister of Finance who said only last December that "if you shut the whole government operation down you would not balance the deficit"?
Does anyone in that gang over there really know what they are doing?
April 19, 1993


Mr. Edwards:: Herbie, you are leading with your chin
again.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is entirely accurate that it can be done in five years as the Minister of National Defence says, or in four years as the Minister of the Environment says. I do know that after 25 years of Liberal government it cannot be done by any of them in a quarter of a century. That we know.
My hon. friend knows full well that when this government took office the deficit was $38.5 billion. It is now down to $32 billion. As a percentage of GDP it has gone from 8.7 per cent to roughly 4.7 per cent or been cut approximately in half. The deficit as a percentage of GDP is the only internationally accepted criterion for evaluating the impact of deficits. It has been cut in half. It is 5.1 as a result of the recession and scheduled to go back down again to under 4.5.1 did not say it was zero, I said it has been cut in half as a percentage of GDP.
I certainly agree with the objectives set out by my hon. friend and my other hon. friend, both of whom will do a much better job running the public finances of Canada than the former President of the Treasury Board who was worse, second only to that President of the Treasury Board.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Prime Minister, in boasting about his record, did not boast about how in only nine years he doubled the public debt to $450 billion, more than happened in all the years since Confederation.
I am surprised that record is not on his mind. Also he has not told us what he thinks of the words of his Minister of Finance who said only last December: "If you shut the whole government operation down, you would not balance the deficit. You would save $15 billion or $16 billion and the senior citizens of this great country and the veterans would not be receiving their cheques".
I ask the Prime Minister this. In the new budget of the Minister of Finance, is he now targeting the old age pensioners and the veterans in terms of cuts in their benefits? If that is the case, why is that a priority rather than cancelling his farewell trips and saving the country millions of dollars?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am offended by my hon. friend. I am making a
Oral Questions
farewell trip to Windsor to say goodbye to him personally-
My hon. friend from Windsor is deeply troubled, as he should be, by a national debt that has doubled. He is quite right.


Don Boudria: Tripled.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend sitting behind is wrong. The hon. member from Windsor is right. It has doubled. The argument that it has doubled exclusively as a result of compound interest on the debt that we inherited is there-


An hon. member:: Every penny.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -every nickel of it, but I will not invoke that argument today.
I would like to know this. Given his indignation in regard to a government that has doubled the debt, what does he have to say about a government that caused the national debt to increase 11 times as the Liberals did when last they were in office?


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Listening to the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister both arguing over who has done the worst job, there is only one alternative and that is my party.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Last week the government released a document called "Changing the Economic Course in a World of Change".
What this has really meant for Canadians is double digit unemployment, doubling the debt and having the greatest number of bankruptcies ever in the history of Canada. Nowhere in this document does it address the issue of unemployment. Nowhere in this document does it address the cost of unemployment. Nowhere in this document is there the cost of the loss of tax dollars because of unemployment.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this. He has one final chance to bring a real change of course with the next budget. Will he do that? Will he bring in a budget based on a full employment policy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is fighting for the title of which party can do the worst job. She will have to fight pretty hard with her colleagues in Ontario because they are doing a pretty good job.

April 19, 1993
Oral Questions
My hon. friend refers to the document "Charting the Economic Course". She quite properly points out that unemployment remains too high in Canada.
The fact that 48,000 jobs were created last month is a very encouraging sign. The fact that 202,000 new jobs have been created since last August is also encouraging. Perhaps more encouraging is the fact that inflation is now at its lowest rate in 30 years, that interest rates are at their lowest in 20 years and that mortgage rates are at their lowest in 30 years.
I think this is good news for the economy. It promises the kinds of job creation that all members of the House in all political parties want for Canada.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
For the almost 3.9 million Canadians who do not have a job or who are underemployed, I have to say to the Prime Minister that the course that this government has taken Canada on for far too many Canadians has been a shipwreck.
The pain in this country caused by unemployment was again drawn to the attention of Canadians by the message last week from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops that condemned Canada's combined unemployment and underemployment rate with one in four Canadians looking for adequate work. We will never be able to address the deficit and the debt if we do not get Canadians back working. It is something that we have been proposing for some time.
Will the Prime Minister look seriously at the proposals the bishops have made in terms of looking at unemployment and take this opportunity to really get Canadians back working?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we always look very carefully at proposals from all areas, including the Catholic bishops. We have obviously considered what they have put forward.
I point out to my hon. friend that today in a story it is reported that Canadian manufacturing order books were overflowing in February as the outlook for industry continued to improve. Statistics Canada reported Monday that unfilled orders jumped by 5 per cent from January, the largest monthly rise in five years.
The Royal Bank predicted last week that real growth in Canada would be 3.5 per cent and 4 per cent in Quebec this year, and that the rest of the decade would continue to see steady growth, low inflation and healthy job growth.
The job creation is worrisome here as it is in the United States. In the United States they are referring to it as a jobless recovery. Jobs are being created but the number of people entering the work force continues to exceed that.
All industrialized countries are concerned by it, which is the result of enhanced productivity, greater investment in people and in equipment and therefore the capacity to sell products internationally. It is a double-edged sword that is before us and that we are working with very closely, which explains the programs by the Minister of Employment and Immigration to create new jobs in that sector while allowing the private sector based on exports to do the principal element of work in creating new jobs.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The fact remains that the government has choices. One is to cancel a helicopter program that we do not need, that Canada does not need.

But I would repeat that, in their pastoral message, the bishops say:
Such widespread unemployment undermines society's moral fibre
and must be eliminated. It deprives workers and their families of the
income required to meet their basic needs. It also deprives people of
their dignity and their self-esteem.
When will this government understand the damage done by its policies, change direction and table a budget to help Canadians and their families? It is very urgent at this time and I would like to ask the Prime Minister this question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I just said in English that the number of jobs had increased by 48,000 last month, the eighth month in a row that employment grew.
This comment from the Royal Bank of Canada is very significant: "An increase of 48,000 jobs is very encouraging. The Canadian economy has turned the comer. The annual rate of job creation has reached 1.3 per cent, the highest since the recession began". This renewed optimism led 85,000 more people to look for work last month
April 19, 1993

and the number of jobs has increased by 200,000 since August.
This is not a miracle but sustained, steady, impressive progress that will achieve my honorable friend's social objectives.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the government House leader stood in the House and defended the government's handling of the unfortunate incident in which the Canadian public learned through the media about the death of a Somali involving five Canadian peacekeepers three weeks after the event.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Why did the minister not inform the House of this incident as soon as it happened?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the incident was made public the day after it happened by a press release from the Department of National Defence in theatre. I have here a copy of the press release that was issued March 18 of this year.
The event was made public immediately. There was some confusion because a copy of this press release was not communicated to the Department of National Defence in Ottawa and I have instituted a revision of our communications policies to ensure that does not occur again.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, last week the military announced that the Somali death of March 16 should have been announced as soon as it happened instead of waiting. They announced there is an error.
The DND director of public affairs said that delay was a result of confusion over two separate incidents occurring over two separate days.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of National Defence who should know it is ultimately the
Oral Questions
minister's responsibility, and the minister's alone, to inform Parliament and the Canadian public. Why is the minister allowing departmental officials to take flak over this issue and why does she not admit to exercising poor judgment in this case?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, events of this sort are always communicated in the same way directly to the press. There was another event that happened at a similar time that was picked up by the press. This one was not. It is not the custom to always announce these things in Parliament as that hon. member knows well from his experience in the military.
As I have said it was an unacceptable mistake that this was not communicated to defence headquarters and I have taken steps to ensure that error would not happen again.


HELICOPTER PROGRAM
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence who has been running around the country saying politicians have to listen to Canadians. At the same time she ignores the fact that four out of five Canadians oppose her helicopter project.
She is prepared to spend billions of dollars to prop up an Italian firm, Agusta, even though that company is at the centre of the corruption scandal which is rocking democracy in Italy. The president of the firm has been arrested on charges of bribery and corruption. There is an arrest warrant outstanding for the director general and the police are searching for other executives of the firm.
Does the minister really think she is listening to Canadians when she is spending billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money to do business with a company that is rocked by scandal?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, even if I were not Minister of National Defence, I was Minister of Justice and I am a lawyer and I am someone who has respect for the law and the rules of evidence. I would

April 19, 1993
Oral Questions
never institute a judicial inquiry for a circumstance under which there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest any wrongdoing or any impropriety with respect to a contract entered into by the Government of Canada.
I think it is one of the shoddier examples of political rhetoric I have seen in my life in politics to hear what is being said by members on that side of the House about this particular matter.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, Canadian politicians did not arrest the president of the company who was under suspicion for bribing the Italian government; the Italian police did.
I would therefore like to ask the minister whether she thinks that she is taking good care of Canada's finances when she does business with a company involved in a national scandal in Italy.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the truth. The truth is that an individual, not the company, was charged. There is no relationship between the actions of this individual and the company. That is the truth and the hon. member must admit it.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The minister has rejected a judicial review of the helicopter purchase, yet the minister herself said on April 9 in Sarnia: "We might want a review of how many we are purchasing for the navy".
Will the minister agree that we need a review not only of how many helicopters the government should be purchasing but why the government is proceeding with this purchase in the first place?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, the original plan for the purchase of ship-borne helicopters was to buy 45 helicopters and as a result of the changes brought about by
the end of the cold war that estimate of the number of helicopters required for ship-borne service in the Canadian navy was reduced to 35.
I believe as minister of defence that our department should continue to review these things in light of changing circumstances, although I see no indication in the short term that there should be a change in that.
I am looking forward to the work that the standing committee is going to be doing in the coming weeks looking at the helicopter purchase. Quite frankly I was very much affected by the unanimous report that the committee of which he is a member gave in November 1990 where it urged the Government of Canada to replace the ship-borne helicopters as planned with the EH-101 and to do it as soon as possible to avoid costly interim measures.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, the committee did not in fact specifically recommend the purchase of these particular helicopters.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, it did.


John F. Brewin: But that was in 1990.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John F. Brewin: The defence committee is prepared to look afresh at this and I would suggest that the government when it is spending $5.8 billion of the public's money should be flexible enough to review it.
I ask the minister this question. Given that the helicopters are being made by a company that is in deep financial trouble, whose president is facing charges of corruption and that one test flight has already crashed killing four people, why is the government persisting in being a participant in a project that may itself never fly?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, because in the wisdom of the committee of which that hon. member was an active member-and I might add he had a minority report that did not dissent on this particular point-and in which that member participated fully it recommended that we proceed with this purchase. It did recommend specifically this particular helicopter and I am in the hands of the committee.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
April 19, 1993


THE DEFICIT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Well, let us give him a chance.
Last week, the minister announced he would get rid of the deficit in four years. Aside from cutting social programs, he was not very specific about how he would do this, probably because it would be too hard on his cabinet colleagues.
That being said, perhaps he could tell us what he intends to do about his own backyard. I am getting to my question. Will the minister confirm that he intends to make cuts in his own department and, if so, where? For instance, would there be more cuts in the green plan?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard for his question. I would be delighted to send him a membership card so that he can vote for me on June 13.
I was also glad to hear he is taking a keen interest in our party's leadership campaign and in commitments I made about reducing the deficit and the public debt, commitments which were supported by members of my own party. I proposed a five-point plan which covers all aspects of federal spending.
I can give the hon. member the assurance that, as Prime Minister of Canada, I intend to review all public spending, as all prime ministers must do when they take up their duties.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, that I would like a card in his party. On the other hand, I am not sure he would want my advice on leadership races.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance or whoever is replacing him. Last week the Minister of the Environment stated that he would erase the deficit in four years. This minister has been a member of this government throughout much of its term. The question therefore is: Has he been keeping the tremendous insights into fiscal policy to himself over
Oral Questions
the years? If not, why has the government not adopted his plan?
I speak to the Prime Minister. As the national debt has ballooned under this government over the last decade, why has Canada been deprived of this new-found voice of fiscal rectitude?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I do not
know.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister may want to continue, but it might be a good time to stop. The right hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will think about it.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of the Environment.
As the chain-saws rev up to cut into the hearts of centuries old trees in Clayoquot Sound on Vancouver Island, environmentalists around the world are mobilizing to save this example of one of the earth's largest unlogged temperate old-growth forests. The Liberal Party has asked the minister to preserve this global treasure by including it in the Pacific Rim National Park.
Has the minister taken any action to save Clayoquot Sound? Will he take any action?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I received a letter written by the hon. member and the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard on the issue of Clayoquot Sound. I think they would have done well to also send a copy of the letter to the Government of British Columbia given the fact that these lands belong to it and that this is first and foremost a land management issue in the province of British Columbia itself.
The hon. member will know that through the green plan the government has established an approach by which we want all 39 natural regions in Canada represented in our national park system. We now have 23 of them represented including that area. We are now trying to move as rapidly as we can to have the 16 additional regions also represented in the national park system.

April 19, 1993
Oral Questions
Our priorities, of course, are going into areas where we do not already have representation.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. I certainly hope he can move faster than the chain-saws.
Months away from a general election and perhaps a new government in Canada, the Minister of the Environment is failing to do his duty to preserve Clayoquot Sound for future generations.
I ask the minister, how can he preclude this option for the future? How can he stand silent while the forests that have stood for centuries face destruction? Is this the kind of legacy he wants to leave? Is this the kind of leadership he wants to give?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that the Government of Canada has moved to include many regions of Canada in our national parks system. For example, we created South Moresby National Park. We created two new national parks in the last year. We set lands aside in North Baffin Island and also signed an agreement for the park on Banks Island in the western Arctic.
We have met our commitments to include some lands in our national parks system. We are striving now to include all regions in the country as we move along with this initiative.


WESTRAY MINE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In response to an Order Paper question I put forward on March 18, 1991 the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister responded that correspondence and calls received by the Office of the Prime Minister regarding the Westray coal mine project were noted and forwarded to the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology.
Yet in reading an access to information response we found that Stanley Hartt and Peter White, the chief of staff and principal secretary of the Prime Minister, on October 16, 1988, on October 17, 1988, October 26,1988, November 7, 1988, November 14, 1988, January 6, 1989,
January 9,1989, February 4, and February 8 were directly involved in the funding arrangements. Often they were involved in phone calls and often they were the only representatives of the federal government present.
Why was there a cover-up? Why was that information kept from Parliament?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows we have already tabled over 7,000 pages of documents and more will be forthcoming.
He should know too if any mine were going to be established in a region where unemployment was high and regional economic development was needed that the mayors, the reeves, the municipalities and so on of that region would be pressing for it and would be knocking on every door. They would knock on the doors of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. They would do everything they could to bring the project to fruition. The people who were against it would probably do the same.
There is nothing in this that should alarm anybody who knows how governments work.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, if that information is what the government wishes to portray, why did it not say that in answer to my question long before the disaster?
On March 18, 1991 again the correspondence was noted and forwarded. Evidently, from what was available through the access to information request, the Prime Minister's office was involved directly and heavily. The chief of staff and the principal secretary of the Prime Minister often were the only federal government representatives involved in the negotiations.
If that is a proper course, why did the government not come clean then?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's facts are wrong and he knows they are wrong. Just about every key department of government was involved in that decision. People were debating it on both sides.
April 19, 1993

Oral Questions
Let us take Churchill or Thompson, Manitoba where the hon. member is from. Let us say that somebody wanted to start a major regional economic expansion there. All sorts of presentations would be made to the Government of Canada. They would knock on every government department door possible in order to see this happen. That is what happened in Nova Scotia as well.


BARRIERE LAKE ALGONQUINS
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In 1991 a trilateral agreement was reached on an integrated management plan for renewable resources, covering forestry and wildlife in an area of about 10,000 square kilometres located partly within the La Verendrye wildlife reserve and surrounding area in Quebec.
What does the minister intend to do about supporting the efforts of the Barriere Lake Algonquins to protect the environment in the La Verendiye wildlife reserve? Today, the Barriere Lake Algonquins want to erect barricades to prevent logging companies from entering the forest, saying they want to protect the fauna and flora. They want to maintain a 60-metre buffer zone, not the 20-metre zone which meets current standards under Quebec law.


Hon. Pierre H. Vincent (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Abitibi on his work on these issues, and also the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, who has been been involved in this matter for some time.
As the hon. member for Abitibi pointed out, a trilateral agreement was signed in 1991 on the management plan, and a working agenda was drawn up by the Government of Quebec and the Algonquins. I recently met Chief Matchewan, who is tiying to persuade the Quebec government which withdrew from the negotiating table to come back to the table and resume negotiations on the management plan. As pointed out in the
agreement, the federal government is involved in a trustee role, and my department will continue to act in that capacity.


WESTRAY MINE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The legal counsel for the Westray inquiries said on March 30 that if he did not receive the documentation necessary for a proper investigation he was going to commence legal actions. Our records show that at least 80 pages of this documentation have been censored including 60 pages from the Prime Minister's own file.
Will the government and particularly the Minister of Justice provide to the inquiry uncensored copies of those pages, yes or no?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon. member could know what is missing and what has been changed because the commission has this information. We passed thousands of pages to it on April 8. It has all these documents and it is going to keep them confidential until the judicial proceedings on criminal charges are dealt with.
How could the hon. member know whether there are 60 pages, 6 pages or 6 words missing?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, all members of the government when questioned on this said as long ago as last May that they would co-operate fully with the inquiry. This includes the Prime Minister and the House leader. In fact on June 9, over 10 months ago, the government House leader said: "The government has been forthcoming with all the background documents necessary for the people to examine what has occurred and reach their own conclusions".
As the minister in charge of the documentation to the inquiry, why has he and his predecessor held back 11,000 pages of documentation which was only sent to the inquiry last week?

April 19, 1993
Oral Questions


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the pages we sent to the inquiry were at the express request of the inquiry itself and the commissioner.
Does the hon. member want to complicate another process, which is the criminal process, by releasing documents that this commission has? We have to wait until the commission is done with them and until the judicial inquiry has reached the proper stage. He knows that.
We have been very open right from the beginning. There are thousands of pages. We have sent documents to the commission that even the commission did not know it had, claimed it did not have and then found it had them. We have been very open. We will continue to be open with the commission because we, hopefully like the hon. member, want to get to the bottom of this safety issue. It has been regulated by the province. It is a provincial commission of inquiry and we want to help it get to the right answer.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
As a result of the government's economic mismanagement, poverty has become a permanent feature of urban life across Canada. In fact over 10 per cent of Toronto's population have had to rely on food banks at one time or another. Over 66 per cent of those individuals have lost their jobs recently, thanks to the Tory recession.
Given that the rising dependence of food banks in our country has become a chronic epidemic, when will this government finally drastically alter its economic course so that people can regain their jobs as well as their dignity?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I read with great interest the report that came from Statistics Canada showing the excellent track record of this government including family incomes, particularly women's incomes.
Real average incomes grew by 9 per cent over the 1985-90 period and almost all family types and all
regions experienced this increase. Women's incomes which should be of particular interest to my hon. friend are catching up with men's. Their average wages grew 11 per cent between 1985-90 while those of men grew by 3 per cent. We are making progress and we expect this to continue as the economy improves over this year and next.
As the hon. member knows, the OECD, the World Bank and the IMF all predict that Canada will lead the G-7 in growth both this year and next year. That is extremely important for job creation and the wealth of Canadians.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the government just does not get it. Last year over 75 million pounds of food were delivered to needy Canadians by Canadian food banks. Those are Third World statistics.
How can these Canadians have any hope with this government's sense of priorities when the federal government is spending $1 million on a final farewell tour by this Prime Minister?
I challenge the Prime Minister and I ask: Will the government instead donate $1 million to the Toronto Daily Bread food bank? This would allow it to provide 700,000 meals to needy Canadians and would really be putting Canadians first rather than the gratification of this Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the boys are getting jumpy over there. I can see they are really getting worried and they have good reason to be worried.


An hon. member:: They do not like those polls.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is the kind of scurrilous question which slanders Canada in regard to calling us a Third World country. We have problems in this country but Canada treats all of its citizens better than any other country in the whole world. Do not say that you have the right to sneer.
The minister has put together an unprecedented package to assist people in need and children in need. There are billions of dollars that have been increased some 20 per cent over the last term in regard to helping people in Canada who need the help most of all.

April 19, 1993
On that point my hon. friend is right. We have been working very, very carefully and very well. But it is to do a dishonour to Canada to suggest that we find ourselves in the company of Third World countries which unfortunately find themselves in a league totally different from ours. That is unfair and inaccurate.
With regard to my trip, I point out to my hon. friend that he was very eulogistic in 1984 when his former leader on the way out went to Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, East Germany, Romania, Moscow, London and Paris. Where was he then?


GREAT LAKES
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
As reported in a recent news account, a senior official with the Canadian Coast Guard stated that it lacks equipment or plans to deal with a major chemical spill from a tanker in the Great Lakes.
My question for the minister is this: Is that report true? If so, what does the minister intend to do about it?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that next to safety of life, prevention of marine pollution including marine spills is the Coast Guard's first priority.
We take great pride in the fact that over the past years with the help of people from environment and the Coast Guard all chemical-carrying tankers must now comply with stringent construction and operating standards. Many are double hull as he probably knows.
By regulation the industry is required to have the capability to respond to spills of over 300 different types of chemicals. The Coast Guard's primary role is to ensure potential polluters are able to respond. I think they are doing an excellent job and will keep improving the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that we will begin with a question of privilege from the hon. member for Churchill. I will follow that with a ruling which I am obliged to bring to the House.
Following that, and I want members to know this, there will be a tribute to a former colleague of ours from British Columbia, Alex Patterson. I think the hon. member for Fraser Valley East will speak first and I
Privilege
understand other hon. members will want to say something.
To begin with, the hon. member for Churchill on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on December 8,1990 before the mine disaster occurred at Westray, question No. 437 was placed on the Order Paper on my behalf. The question read: "Were any calls or correspondence exchanged between the Prime Minister's office and any person or organization inside or outside government regarding the Westray coal mine project at Pictou, Nova Scotia? If so, on what dates and with which parties?"
I placed that question on the Order Paper recognizing it was one that required detailed study by government because I wanted a detailed answer. I recognized at that time that government officials had many questions about the funding of the Westray project. We were curious to know exactly what the role of the Prime Minister's office was with regard to that particular project.
On March 18, 1991 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister responded to me stating in part: "Correspondence and calls received by the Office of the Prime Minister regarding the Westray coal mine project are noted and forwarded to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology".
During the break I had an opportunity to read the information the government had to file as a result of the access to information request put forward by the Halifax Chronicle-Herald on this very issue.
As I noted during Question Period, there were a number of times when either the principal secretary to the Prime Minister or the chief of staff of the Prime Minister, Peter White and Stanley Hartt, were directly and personally involved in these discussions. They took phone calls, made phone calls, attended meetings with government officials and attended meetings with representatives of Curragh Resources.
I know if there have been a number of rulings by speakers one cannot really argue about an answer; if one does not like the answer it is a matter of argument and

April 19, 1993
Speaker's Ruling
not privilege. However I would ask you to review those past precedents, because in this particular case-and I would like to point out that my questions were asked long before the mine disaster-I was asking for specific information. I was following the rules this House sets forward to get specific information. On a number of occasions I have heard various parliamentary secretaries to the government House leader say: "These answers require extensive work; they require expensive work".
That is the purpose of these types of questions. From the correspondence and calls I received that are noted and forwarded, it is evident to me that the answer I received is a very inaccurate one.
I asked that question on behalf of a number of Canadians who had approached our offices on this issue. By giving them this information, which came from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, I was giving them false information. As a member of Parliament, I took the information that was given to me, which was false, and forwarded it to other Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, my appeal to you and my question of privilege is this: How do we get accurate information and how do we serve our constituents and other Canadians if the information we receive from government ministers and their parliamentary secretaries is false?


Mr. Speaker:: I think it should be noted that no member is rising so at the moment I am going to consider the intervention of the hon. member. If by any chance anyone wishes to say anything, then they should indicate that to me.


Thomas Hockin: I would like to briefly respond to that.
I find this point of personal privilege quite difficult to understand. Frankly we have-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I am faced with that dilemma often. I indicated to the House that I would look carefully at the intervention of the hon. member. I have invited the minister to respond if he wishes. If he wishes to take advisement on the matter and come back to the House when he is prepared, I will certainly hear him.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, if you would like to take it under advisement fine, but my answer during Question Period is the same answer I would give today. Within the
Government of Canada all sorts of departments are constantly spoken to when regional industrial projects are being promoted.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to say to the minister that one of the reasons I want to take it under advisement is that I was listening very carefully to the exchange earlier in Question Period. I will report back and let the hon. member know when it is appropriate to do so.



Mr. Speaker:: I have a ruling which I am now prepared to share with the House on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River regarding the tabling of Order in Council PC 1992-2715, pursuant to Section 59(5) of the Customs Thriff; and the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre regarding the tabling of the government response to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade report.
Members will remember that when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre raised the matter, which he did, I advised him that a similar matter was before me and I would try to deal with them both at the same time.
I would like to advise all hon. members that I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on Wednesday, February 24 by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River regarding the failure of the Minister of Finance to table an Order in Council pursuant to section 59(5) of the Customs Thriff.
Regrettably this issue is not new to this House, having been raised by the hon. member just over a year ago. I would like to thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to the attention of the House again and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance for the response.
I will deal as well in this ruling with the question of privilege raised on March 29, 1993 by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre concerning the late tabling of a government response to a committee report from the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
April 19, 1993

In presenting his claim for breach of privilege the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River explained that on December 29, 1992, pursuant to section 59(2) of the Customs Thriff, the Governor in Council adopted Order in Council 1992-2715.
The hon. member's question of privilege concerned section 59(5) of the Customs Tariff which explicitly states: "The Minister of Finance shall cause a copy of any order made pursuant to subsection 2 to be made before Parliament on any of the first 15 sitting days after the making thereof that either House of Parliament is sitting".
Pursuant to this statute, the order referred to by the hon. member should have been tabled on or before February 15, 1993. However as the hon. member noted, the Minister of Finance failed to do so.
For the information of all members I would like to note that the document cited was tabled subsequent to the question of privilege being raised on February 25, 1993. Nonetheless, this eventual tabling of the order does not correct the situation or resolve the fundamental problem.
Let me begin by saying that I find this situation particularly disheartening because of the striking resemblance it bears to the situation which gave rise to the question of privilege raised a year ago. In both cases the Minister of Finance was required by section 59(5) of the Customs Thriff to table an Order in Council within a prescribed time.
I am not making any of these comments in any personal sense and members will understand that but there are people in departments who know these rules and are supposed to ensure they are carried out.
In both of these cases the government failed to do so until after the matter was brought to the attention of this House.

The key element of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River is based on a statutory requirement. That is, the ministry was legally obliged to table a copy of an order made by the Governor in Council within a time limit determined by the Customs Tariff.
Speaker's Ruling

I find it necessary to also repeat the hon. member's statement of one year ago that, and I quote the hon. member: "It is difficult to conceive of any command of this House that could have more legitimacy than one contained in a law passed by this House".
As the hon. member succinctly stated when this very issue was raised in February 1992: "Subsection 59(5) of the Customs Thriff is a statutory provision and statutes are the highest form of command that can be given by this House. In my view the disregard of that legislative command, even if unintentional, is an affront to the authority and dignity of Parliament as a whole and of this House in particular".

It is an opinion that I share and that I expect to prevail in this Chamber. The statutory laws which have been agreed to by members of this House do serve a purpose and are meant to be respected.

As a servant of the House of Commons it is my duty to uphold the dignity and authority of this place. It is an obligation of the Speaker with, of course, the support of the members. At the very beginning of a Parliament every speaker addresses the Crown as represented by the Governor General, by claiming all the rights and privileges, in particular that members may have freedom of speech in their debates, access to His Excellency's person at all seasonable times and that their proceedings may receive from his "Excellency the most favourable construction".
In the present case it is not merely an order of the House that has been violated, but a law duly assented to by the Crown as a constituent part of Parliament. The delegate of the Crown has not met the exigencies of the law of Parliament.
As I have said before, Canada is not an executive democracy nor an administrative democracy, but a parliamentary democracy. If the Speaker has to remind the Crown formally at the opening of every Parliament then those who serve it should take note.
As members are well aware, the tabling of documents constitutes a fundamental procedure of this House. It is a part of our rules and ensures that members have access to the information necessary to them to effectively deal with the issues before Parliament.

April 19, 1993
Tributes
In addition, as I mentioned a year ago, the rules of the House specify that all reports, returns and papers to be laid before the House in accordance with the requirements of the statute are automatically referred to a standing committee, pursuant to Standing Order 32(5). Consequently, ministers and departmental officials must ensure that required documents are tabled so the House has a copy for the information of members and for review by one of its committees.
The requirements contained in our rules and statutory laws have been agreed upon by this House and constitute an agreement which I think all of us realize must be respected.
There has been a growing number of complaints raised by members in the past year about responses to petitions not being filed within the required time and answers to written questions being answered late. I understand that we live in an imperfect world. Nonetheless, what I refer to is all on the record and today I am dealing yet again with a document not being tabled within the legally prescribed time period.
In addition, the member for Winnipeg South Centre raised the issue on March 29, 1993 that the government was in breach of Standing Order 109 by not presenting the comprehensive response to the report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade on the future of Canadian military goods, production and export to the House within the 150 days required.

Members cannot function if they do not have access to the material they need for their work and if our rules are being ignored and even statutory instruments are being disregarded.

I believe the House management committee should be given the opportunity to look into this whole question of late tablings. I am therefore prepared to find a prima facie case of breach of privilege and allow the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River to move a motion referring this matter to committee.
In this way I am allowing the House to decide whether or not it shares my concern about the growing severity of this problem. The House may then decide whether or
not it feels the House management committee should be tasked with considering the issue.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for a ruling which I believe will fortify the rules and procedures which will enable Parliament to better reflect the will and franchise of Canadians. Accordingly, on behalf of all the members of the House, I move:
That the matter of the non-observance of the tabling requirements
for Order in Council PC 1992-2715 and other documents in the
House of Commons be referred to the Standing Committee on House
Management.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: I am very grateful that many hon. members have remained. Our colleague, Alex Patterson, who was well known to many of us in this place, and certainly well known to all of us from British Columbia, has passed on. This is our first chance since that happened to speak appropriately of Alex and give our proper sensitivities to his family. I am going to ask the hon. member for Fraser Valley East to commence.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to say a few words to note the passing of Alex Patterson, a former member of this House of Commons and my predecessor as the member of Parliament for Fraser Valley East.
Alex Patterson spent most of his adult life working on behalf of the people in Fraser Valley East. He represented the riding in Parliament for most of the period between 1953 and 1984. In that period he earned a reputation as a hard worker and served as an MP for both the Social Credit Party and the Progressive Conservative Party.
April 19, 1993

Alex generated a good reputation in the riding not based solely on his ties with the Social Credit Party or the PC Party but more as a hard working gentleman who emphasized being involved at the grass roots level in the community.
Alex Patterson was bom in 1911 in Raymore, Saskatchewan, a prairie boy like myself, and moved to Abbotsford in 1951. It was in the early years, while carrying out his responsibilities as a minister of the gospel in the Church of the Nazarene, that he was approached to run in the 1953 federal election. His background and training in the church gave Alex a very clear view of right and wrong. He tried to emphasize these positions in his speeches during his first election campaign and continued to do so as the member of Parliament.
Alex was first elected in 1953 and then defeated in the Diefenbaker sweep of 1958. He was re-elected in 1962 and was defeated in the Liberal victory of 1968. He was then asked to serve under the Progressive Conservative label instead of the Social Credit label and accepted that challenge. He was elected in 1972 and served in this House until 1984 when he announced his retirement and I was nominated to stand as the Progressive Conservative candidate.
It was my privilege to attend, along with my wife, the funeral services held in Abbotsford on April 6 and to express the condolences of my wife and myself to his wife Charlotte, their four children and their spouses and his many grandchildren who were there. They are a credit to Alex and Charlotte's life together. I want them to know that this House appreciates the contribution that Alex made not only to the community of Fraser Valley East in British Columbia but to Canada in his service in this House of Commons.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition it is an honour to pay tribute to our late colleague and friend, Dr. Alexander Bell Patterson.
There are many things that might be said about the former member for Fraser Valley, subsequently Fraser Valley East. Which member of this House, except for the member for Parry Sound, like Alex won fully nine of the eleven elections he contested over more than a 30-year period?
Tributes
In 1965 Alex was acting national leader of the Social Credit Party. In 1972 he changed parties and was elected again. As a friend, Ewald Rempel, noted the other day: "Regardless of what party he ran for he would have won. He was very popular".
People might dispute why he was so well loved. Having known him between 1979 and 1984 I think his success had much to do with his religious values and deep personal honesty. He saw elected office as a stewardship, an extension of the church ministry. He would never put himself ahead of his constituents. He cared about all of them without favour and without fear. He worked hard for farmers, small business people and all others in the Fraser Valley.
This is not to say that our colleague, while often low key, could not be blunt. Members will perhaps recall what he once said about the Trudeau government: "It has destroyed the confidence of the international community in Canada's economy. It has destroyed the confidence of Canadians". Similarly, he once described the CBC as: "One of the foremost purveyors of anti-social, anti-family, amoral philosophy, contributing to the undermining of the moral fibre of this nation". He was concerned with more important issues than political correctness. Pierre Trudeau campaigned twice during six months in Fraser Valley East before the 1974 election in an effort to beat him but Alex was re-elected.
I must not close without making reference to his beloved family, his wife Charlotte and his four children, Lawrence, Ruth, Goldie and Wayne.
In summary, Alex was a strong family man who both inspired and instilled traditional values and commitments to one's calling. The early years, when MPs were allowed one train trip for every three-month period, were often difficult but he was committed to doing the best job possible and working for the constituents of the Fraser Valley riding he represented for nearly 24 years.
Columnist Allan Fotheringham said prior to one election: "The Fraser Valley is definitely Patterson country". Community was important to him and he enjoyed the charity work carried out through his longtime association with the Kiwanis Club and the Chamber of Commerce. He was a good man who served full time in the Christian ministry for over 20 years before he was

April 19, 1993
Tributes
persuaded to run for Parliament. A colleague commented that his experience in the pulpit made him one of the easiest speakers to listen to in this House. Though his voice was strong and authoritative in the House his firm Christian faith was quiet and always consistent. His background in the ministry served him well in encouraging what he thought was the ethical fibre needed in parliamentarians.
When a secretary passed away and no funeral was planned several staffers asked Dr. Patterson to lead a memorial service for those who wished to remember and pay their respects. It was not unusual for colleagues and staffers from various areas of the Hill to drop by his office to discuss a difficult time or ask for a word of encouragement and advice.
Following a stroke in early March of this year our friend was in hospital for four weeks when family members were able to gather. He passed away peacefully in the arms of Charlotte, his loving wife of 56 years, with his children at his side. Alex is fondly remembered, deeply missed and will always remain so to his family, friends and colleagues here. He will remain a perfect example of a faithful husband and father.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Tbanscona):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus I would like to extend our condolences to Mr. Patterson's family and to join in remembering him and his service here in the House of Commons.
I remember him personally. We shared five years together here. Although I did not have the opportunity to work with him in committee and therefore did not get to know him very well the overriding image I have of him is that of a real gentleman. He was a fellow whom one could speak to in the elevator, the hallway or the House, and although members said he could be forthright he was the kind of person one felt one could talk to. Sometimes those things do go together. I want to express our condolences.
Looking over Mr. Patterson's career before I came to this House I noted that he was defeated twice and re-elected. That is not something that happens to a lot of members. It is an unusual thing for someone to be twice defeated at different intervals and then re-elected.
It shows his commitment to the House of Commons as a place where he wanted to live out his commitment to his understanding of reality.
I note also that he was a minister in the Nazarene Church and I appreciate that element of his vocation as well. Although as a fellow Christian I may have come to different conclusions about how we express our Christian faith in political life that is something I also want to take note of and to respect.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in paying tribute to a man everyone here respected. He was a man of whom it is easy to speak well because he was a good man. He was thought well of in the party, in the entire House of Commons and obviously by his constituents.
I remember my former colleague, the former member from Capilano, told me once that when Alex Patterson was speaking he would come down from his office and listen to him in the House. That says something about the quality of speaker that Alex Patterson was. It was good oratory but it was also good content. He was a good member of Parliament.
I think the members of the opposition also recognized that while he spoke in opposition he did not speak in malice. There is a great deal of difference between the two. We in the House of Commons need to learn lessons like that from a man like Alex Patterson.
Obviously he was also a good member for his constituency. As members who have spoken before me have noted, he was a man who was constantly re-elected. As my hon. friend from Winnipeg Transcona has mentioned, he could also be defeated but was re-elected. That does not happen too often.
He was re-elected under changing circumstances for his riding. If one compares the boundaries of his constituency in 1953 to what they were in 1984 one recognizes that there were many changes in his constituency both in its size and in its constituents. Yet he commanded the respect of the people all through those years. At the outset it was a constituency that was probably entirely

^I
April 19, 1993

agricultural and certainly rural. By the end of his career it was changing and becoming light industry and commercial. Certainly today that constituency is enjoying a different kind of change. Through those changing circumstances he always enjoyed the support and respect of his people.
I guess one could say that with Alex Patterson you could get old and maybe even old-fashioned, in the best way of interpreting that word, but he was never an old fogy. Old-fashioned in the best sense of the word, he maintained the values that have given Canada strength and made it the country that it is today.
We pay respect to him because he could be a pillar but he could also be pliable. That speaks well of him.
I want to join others in that respect. He was always in touch with the people. One could not be re-elected the way he was without being in touch with the people.
In the words of the book of Acts it was said that Barnabas was a good man. The same could be said of Alex Patterson.
I would like to add just one anecdote which does not come from his political career or the Chamber but his family life, which he has passed on to the next generation. He was a man of Scottish descent. As other members have noted, he was a minister in the Nazarene Church. One of his children went into the ministry and decided to go for further training in the United States south of the Mason-Dixon line. The grandchildren were put in public school in kindergarten.
On the first day home from school his grandchild came home all enthusiastic. He came home and said: "Mom, I have a terrific teacher. She looks just like you". The mother was pretty excited about this and could not wait for parent-teacher night to arrive so that she could see this teacher who looked just like her.
The night came and she went to visit the school to see her son's teacher, and she was black. Here is a teacher teaching a child who did not see the colour. That did not happen by accident. That was not a casual incident. That happened because the parents learned from their parents that all men are created equal and they are created with dignity by their creator. They learned that everyone deserves the respect of everyone else regardless of who they are. That is the kind of a heritage that Alex Patterson passed on to his children who then passed it on to their children. That is the lesson all of us need to learn from a man like Alex Patterson.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank hon. members for their commentary and I advise the House that the proceedings will be sent to Alex's family immediately.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 32 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 85th report of the standing committee on House Management on the membership of the standing committee. With leave of the House, I intend to move concurrence in this report later today.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CUSTOMS TARIFF


Thomas Hockin: for leave to introduce Bill C-122, an act to amend the Customs Tariff (textile tariff reduction).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Hockin for the Minister of Finance moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.

April 19, 1993
Routine Proceedings
Bill read the first time and printed.



SEIZED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ACT


Thomas Hockin: for leave to introduce Bill C-123, an act respecting the management of certain property seized or restrained in connection with certain offences, the disposition of certain property on the forfeiture thereof and the sharing of the proceeds of disposition therefrom in certain circumstances.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Hockin for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State for Agriculture moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I move that the 85th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, tabled in the House earlier today, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since the report was tabled earlier today, I will ask one of the clerks to read it so that hon. members will be acquainted with its contents. I will then put the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is a privilege to present a petition which I am told is signed by approximately 47,000 Calgarians with respect to reforming the Young Offenders Act.
The petition begins with a reference to the late Ryan Garrioch, an honours student of 13 who I understand was killed by a 15-year old fellow student in his school yard. The petition concludes that the Young Offenders Act should be replaced with a measure having a maximum age for young offenders of 13 years instead of 18 years as it is now.
In closing, this is the largest petition by far that I have ever had the honour to present. I should note the anguish of Ryan's parents, Stu and Marg Garrioch, when they came to Ottawa recently with this petition. It is an honour as a fellow Albertan to accept their invitation to present it today.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am tabling additional petitions to those already tabled from constituents living in the High Park area expressing their opposition to the closing of High Park Pharmacy postal outlet No. 166.
The petitioners state they are very satisfied with the service and the location of sub-post office No. 166 located in High Park Pharmacy. They call upon Parliament to urge the government to keep postal outlet No. 166 located in the High Park Pharmacy operating in its present state and location.
The users, by the thousands, are very pleased with this postal outlet and cannot understand why the government wants to close or move it.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from residents of Amos, Lan-drienne, Riviere-Heva, Saint-Mathieu and Val d'Or, in the riding of Abitibi, who say that films depicting violence on television are dangerous and therefore
April 19, 1993

unacceptable because they are conducive to greater violence.
The petition also says that all toys that incite children to play violent games are unacceptable and their manufacture should be banned. It is also pointed out that when reporting acts of violence, freedom of the press should be restricted, and that the repeated broadcasting of news about acts of violence on television, on all channels, and on radio may incite others to engage in similar acts of violence.
Therefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass the appropriate legislation in order to eliminate violence in our society and thus protect our children and give all citizens a better quality of life.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents as well as a number of residents of the Salmon Arm, British Columbia area.
They point out their very grave concern in that they consider the North America free trade agreement is opening the door for the future sales of water from our rivers and lakes to the United States and northern Mexico. They point out that NAFTA does not have water as an exempt category as raw logs and unprocessed fish on the east coast are identified. They are asking that water be identified as an exempt category and simply that we should not sell our Canadian water to the United States or Mexico.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a group of three petitions all relating to the subject matter of child pornography.
The petitioners are from all over British Columbia but I specifically note the petitioners from my own riding. They are people from Port Moody, Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam, British Columbia. The petitioners ask that anyone selling materials relating to child pornography be held punishable by law.
Routine Proceedings
I am pleased to table this group of petitions on behalf of these petitioners.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 465 and 478.


Mr. Dingwall: From 1985 to the present, with respect to the Department of
Supply and Services, how much did it spend on procurement in each
province and territory?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: The
statistics in this report do not cover all goods and services purchased by the Government of Canada. Supply and Services Canada (SSC) procures only 55 per cent of the total goods and services bought by the federal government.
SSC neither awards contracts nor maintains contracting statistics on the basis of electoral or other boundaries. To produce the following listing, SSC sorted its procurement data base by postal code.
The statistics do not necessarily reflect the origin of the goods and services purchased. More often a contract is listed in the area where the contractor is located and does not reflect any subcontract work or other services carried out elsewhere. For example, fuel puchases from Esso are part of a total $249,678,000 government purchase from Esso Petroleum Canada through its office in Nepean, Ontario, but the fuel is not refined in Nepean. Nor does the oil come from Ontario. Nepean is a point of billing only.
Finally, many contracts are multi-year in nature and are accounted for only in the year of award (i.e. major Crown projects such as large shipbuilding contracts).

April 19, 1993
Routine Proceedings
Fiscal year 1991-92
Fiscal year 1990-91
Fiscal year 1989-90
Fiscal year 1988-89
Fiscal year 1987-88
Fiscal year 1986-87
Fiscal year 1985-86
	No. of doc.	Value of doc. sooo	No. of doc.	Value of doc. $000	No. of doc. [DOT]	Value of doc. $000	No. of doc.	Value of doc. $000	No. of doc.	Value of doc. $000	No. of doc. *	Value of doc. $000	No. of doc. [DOT]	Value of doc. $000
Atlantic Provinces														
Newfound- land	4,355	142,290	5,958	161,668	8,014	157,925	7,300	116,658	7,746	92,337	6,882	100,160	6,666	51,681Prince Edward Island	945	14,723	1,452	18,004	1,798	23,940	1,833	19,026	2,136	14,110	2,077	10,667	1,391	13,373Nova Scotia	17,021	493,418	21,340	429,095	28,178	366,429	26,785	439,681	25,713	416,605	25,166	370,568	24,987	301,755New Brunswick	5,202	227,417	6,785	218,816	8,534	203,293	8,504	228,258	9,393	2,839,776	9,534	91,990	7,869	89,969Quebec	28,316	1,425,769	37,483	1,522,862	45,792	1,488,218	47,120	1,305,560	49,462	1,618,065	47,960	2,594,354	50,193	1,415,542Ontario	70,805	4,772,670	91,090	3,814,450	112,668	3,519,410	117,081	3,339,883	115,294	3,266,496	114,800	3,566,511	119,527	3,095,828Prairie Provinces	Manitoba	5,671	401,956	7,701	415,074	9,826	353,350	9,745	259,995	10,760	337,396	10,077	218,734	10,334	140,603Saskatche- wan	2,391	78,983	3,822	89,888	4,735	84,944	4,412	68,522	4,482	67,641	5,141	81,111	6,104	74,368Alberta	11,050	358,878	14,363	348,555	17,148	705,895	18,128	335,919	18,794	274,374	18,991	301,379	20,418	222,535British Columbia	12,342	606,699	17,215	388,778	22,450	364,893	22,054	395,696	24,937	367,393	24,168	332,330	28,330	308,101Yukon & Northwest Territories	835	35,785	1,296	81,637	1,430	28,177	1,522	25,065	1,427	134,560	1,504	21,726	1,701	19,686Across Canada	98	11,433	119	88,407	353	80,898	225	67,172	54	143,327	18	423,713	43	104,445Totals	159,031	8,570,021	208,624	7,577,234	260,926	7,377,372	264,709	6,601,435	270,198	9,572,080	266,318	8,113,243	277,563	5,837,886
No. of contracts


Mr. Barrett: Since January 1, 1990, have there been any inquiries made of the government or any of its agencies, boards or Crown corporations regarding a possible sale, lease or other disposal of Royal Roads Military College, its lands or buildings and, if so, who made the inquiries and which departments did they contact?


Charles A. Langlois: Since January 1, 1990 the Department of National Defence has received inquiries regarding a possible sale, lease or other disposal of Royal Roads Military College. However, according to the Privacy Act the names of persons who made these inquiries cannot be divulged to a third party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 452 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.
April 19, 1993	COMMONS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. MacWilliam: With respect to the Canadian Armed Forces, (a) were any measures taken to promote attitudinal and behavioural change among male officers toward women, specifically with respect to issues of sexual harassment, gender inequities and violence against women and, if so, what are they (b) have any affirmative action programs been implemented and, if so, what are they?
Return tabled.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Beatty that Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue the remarks I began before Question Period.
The central point I was dealing with was the fact that Bill C-62 was putting forward policy objectives. Those objectives designed a telecommunications system and policy which asserted clearly that the national govem-
Government Orders
ment's direction was going to be the overriding, ultimate authority for telecommunications policy in this country.
For the last seven or eight years this country has witnessed a government that year after year has worked against the principle it is enunciating today. Our national institutions, national programs and Crown corporations have served every region of our country, especially those regions that were very difficult to serve. We have had a total dismantling of many of those programs and institutions.
I have never hidden the fact that I am a strong centralist. I believe passionately in a strong national government. When I read the opening section of this bill, clause 7,1 could not believe it. It read like Liberal policy. This is a government that has been advocating constitutional arrangements time after time. Just recently the referendum was on a document that promoted a massive decentralized system. When I read this bill and found it approached our Canadian telecommunications policy in a comprehensive way where the national government had clear-cut authority, I was very pleased.
I must say that I believe this is what Canadians want. When we get to committee if every aspect of this bill meets the test of supporting the over-all broad policy objectives then I think this bill will have little difficulty in getting through this House.
Another point I want to make about the bill and about which some people are concerned is that there is definite direction in this bill for the cabinet or the Governor in Council to intervene from time to time to give direction to the CRTC. I personally have no problem with that.
One of the problems this country has is that there are too many instances where the bureaucracy has more control or gives more direction to the agenda than the elected politicians. Ultimately we are the ones responsible for the laws of this land. We are the ones responsible for the decisions that are taken in every region of this country and at every level of a particular department. Therefore, if from time to time the Governor in Council has to intervene and give direction on a certain aspect of our Canadian telecommunications policy I have abso-

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
lutely no difficulty with this. It will be held accountable in this House of Commons or in committee if a decision is faulty. Ultimately it will be held accountable with the electorate.
I suppose the natural concern when dealing with an agency like the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is that we would be concerned about patronage opportunities. That type of accountability is the easiest to define and watch and thus cause the government to be answerable for its actions.
The other aspect of this bill that I thought I would touch on was clause 46. This is a very controversial clause and it is a very hot issue in my community and in urban areas right across the country. It has to deal with unsolicited telecommunications. "The commission" means the CRTC. Clause 46 reads:
The Commission may, by order, prohibit or regulate the carriage of any class of unsolicited telecommunications on the telecommunications facilities of a Canadian carrier to the extent that the Commission considers it necessary to prevent undue inconvenience or nuisance, giving due regard to freedom of expression.
I have had personal experience with this particular aspect of the law referring to the automatic or assisted dialling systems that certain companies use in our community. They use them in terms of the telephone and they also use them in terms of the fax machines.
Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you and through you the House that I have used such a system myself. About a year ago I heard about this system. It was a new technology. I could have my voice on tape and could give it to someone who had most of the phone numbers in the community on a computer. The computer would be programmed in such a way that my message could be delivered repeatedly.
About a year ago I used this system to promote the single-tax debate. I believe that tax reform is a fundamental issue in this country that needs review. I could not touch everyone in my community directly and certainly not everyone in my city of 2.5 million people so I hired one of these automatic dialling companies and within a month I talked to over 500,000 people. I did not personally talk to them. The person would be sitting at home and the telephone would ring. They would pick it up and there would be a taped voice. I started off the
conversation by saying: "Hello, I am Dennis Mills, the member of Parliament for Broadview-Greenwood. I would like to take a few seconds of your time to talk about tax reform. If you do not have the time all you have to do is hang up the phone".
Something that most people do not realize is that one is not forced to listen to the message. One is obviously forced to answer the phone if one is home, but if one is not interested in tax reform one just hangs up the phone and the message ceases.
I was able to communicate in about a 30-day period to about half a million people. I must say that I did get probably 10 to 15 complaints a day and people did say it was not a very polite way to communicate. However, I must say that I received at least 40, 50 or 60 phone calls a day from people who wanted more information and who wanted to get involved in the debate on tax reform.
I used it for only a month because I did feel there were aspects of it that were in poor taste but the idea of getting a very simple message to a number of people in a very short time is a very innovative technology.
I know there are police forces that use this automatic dialling service to give out emergency numbers and to warn people about crisis situations in their community. They will have all the numbers of a particular community on their computer and they will push the button and all of a sudden the police will communicate an emergency message to everyone in the community. That is a good use of the technology.
There are other times when it is in the public interest to use that technology. I think when we are examining this part of the bill that we are going to have to bring in some of the controversial people that have been cited for using this service. I think specifically in my city of the gentleman by the name of Marvin Fine who I am sure has caused a lot of fuss. I think he was the originator of this service and he has been using it for a lot of experimentation. I have told him directly that not all of his work is something that I agree with but he has used it for community work in a very effective way as well.
When we are analyzing this particular section of the act we have to be very careful how we define it and how we give regulation to it.
April 19, 1993

Government Orders
The same thing happens with fax machines. I have used the fax system myself to send out messages. Some days one gets people who thank you for the message. They like it. Then the next day one gets someone who will call in and say: "I want a cheque for 7 cents for the fact that you used my fax paper without seeking my permission". I know that clause 46 of this bill is a hotly contested part of the legislation.
The point is that the public at large has asked us to take a look at every aspect of the telecommunications policy in this country. The minister responsible for culture and communications has in fact taken up that challenge in this bill. Quite frankly, I think he has done a pretty good job.
My colleague from Mount Royal, our lead critic in this area, has said that in committee we will be rigorous in making sure that the policy objectives as stated in the preamble are followed through in the interpretive sections. We are totally supportive of those aspects of the bill where we encourage Canadian ownership. We are totally supportive of the aspects of the bill that encourage more research and development. We are totally supportive of the aspects of the bill that use the telecommunications industry to promote our sovereignty and give a sense of binding the regions and making sure that the rural regions have the same access for the same price as the major urban areas.
Over all, I am in support of this bill. I hope that the minister will be receptive to the amendments that once integrated into this bill will make it a piece of legislation that all of us in this House can be proud of. Ultimately it will be something that will enhance and support a sector of our economy, the telecommunications industry, which makes us the envy of the world.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party on this bill.
The member for Okanagan-Shuswap is our party's critic on this bill and will be speaking in the debate. I am the former critic of some time ago so I would like to speak on this. Some of the things I said when I was party critic now seem to me to be coming true.
The last member who spoke said that we in Canada are known for being one of the great countries in the world for telecommunications.
I could not agree more. Telecommunications and transportation is how we have created modem Canada. That is how we have created a modem, democratic and somewhat equitable Canada.
We are in the process of losing not only our lead in telecommunications but the old notion that we could have the best telephone service in the world for the average person. We had a regulated system that worked and now the government is changing this for ideological reasons. It is changing something that worked.
This bill reflects the Conservative government's insistence to deregulate and to privatize wherever conceivable. It is pure ideology and it is not the way to good government in my view.
While my colleagues and I have called for an updated telecommunications act to drive Canada into the 21st century, this is not the right vehicle. Make no mistake about it, this is a hugely important industry.
Canada's telecommunications industry generated $21 billion in revenue last year. It employs 125,000 people and it accounts for 8.6 per cent of our gross domestic product after inflation. It is currently governed by an antiquated act called the Railways Act. We govern our telecommunications by an act better attuned to railroads than to electronic superhighways, which we now have in Canada.
I will try to give an example of what I mean by the problem of deregulation, ideology and so on. I asked a question last year in the House of the present Minister of Communications. I was asking a question about Bell Telephone and about how the government had now allowed competition by Unitel and other companies with the telephone companies and the result of what that would mean to the phone service in Canada.
The Minister of Communications got up and said to quite a smiling House: "There is the NDP member defending the phone company. Wow, I have never seen anything like this". Everybody laughed, it was a great joke and so on. I thought at the time how little we have really thought through this matter.
The phone company, specifically Bell Telephone, is the largest company in Canada. Its real competition in North America is with American telecommunications where it is about eighth or ninth largest. That is where the real competition is.

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
Smart countries like Germany or Japan in their economic policies would start helping their major company. That would mean protecting their major company and not hurting it. The major company of Bell Telephone could in fact compete where it really competes. It could compete with strength in the North American market.
What does this government do? It deregulates in the local Canadian market. It allows competition in long distance calls. It forces the phone companies to compete and to lose money in putting up lower long distance rates and to become in many ways less competitive in the international scene where it really counts for Canada.
I ask the government to think a little bit ahead to the real competition. I find it ironic that it should have to come from an NDP member to tell the government what real competition means in the world. That is what it means.
We do not think this bill should be passed at second reading for a number of reasons. The first reason is simple. According to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms that you are an expert on, Mr. Speaker: "The second reading is the most important stage through which the bill is required to pass for its whole principle is then at issue and is affirmed or denied by a vote of the House".
Therefore this is a vote on the principle of this bill. However, according to the staff of the Minister of Communications, this bill will undergo substantial amendments during the committee stage. At one time the Department of Communications was asked to redraft the bill to take into account the substantial amendments recommended by the Senate Committee on Transport which engaged in a pre-study of this bill. It is clearly not correct for the House to pass a bill in principle which will be altered fundamentally at committee.
Government members may argue that the principle of the bill remains unchanged but this bill contains seven sweeping policy objectives. Changing any of these policy objectives in committee would undeniably alter the principle of the bill. Indeed we might not even be able to change them in committee, it would be out of order. The Senate committee recommended changes to these policy objectives. How can any members in this House pass legislation in principle when the true form of the
legislation will not be clear until the amendments are made?
We have precedents for this. The gun bill, of which I was a member of the committee, had quite a bit of disagreement concerning the original draft. The minister sent it to the justice committee of the House of Commons, not the Senate, the real committee where the real people are, for study and when we reported back another bill was drafted. The procedure actually worked.
This is what the government should do here. It should not ask the House to send the bill to committee while at the same time telling the House it is going to make major changes in the committee. It is not the right parliamentary procedure and a proper opposition should not vote for a bill like that.
A second and more substantial reason why it should not be passed is clear to anybody who pays a phone bill in Canada. That is a lot of people. I am talking about what has happened to people's phone bills. Have you looked at yours recently, Mr. Speaker? Phone bills are going up, just like cable rates are going up. But wages are not going up. Cable rates and phone bills are sure going up and they are going up pretty fast and pretty substantially.
They are going up for a number of reasons. In June 1992 the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission which supposedly regulates phone and cable companies decided to open up the long distance market. It accepted Unitel's application and assertion that long distance will not cost consumers more.
Let me pause a little bit and discuss Unitel. Unitel is Mr. Rogers and the cable people. Mr. Rogers, when he is the cable industry, has a monopoly and he milks it for all it is worth in increases in cable fees. He takes the money from the protected monopoly and he cream skims that monopoly, the cable industry, then he goes to the CRTC and he cries like a baby saying:"Boy, these phone companies have a monopoly here. I should be allowed to compete". He called it a communist, Leninist, Stalinist system. He said that we have to have competition. Of course he had the communist, Stalinist, Leninist system in the cable industry with the lack of competition but that is okay. He cream skims that, puts the money into Unitel and then starts competing with the phone companies.
April 19, 1993

What is the problem with that? Whatever Mr. Rogers and his friends want to do is fine except when it starts hurting the average Canadian consumer. Not only do they put it to the average Canadian on cable rates, then they take all that money, go into the phone industry and compete in long distance rates. The result is as I predicted until I was blue in the face in this House, in committee, before the CRTC that it would force local rates up and here is why. We have a system in which long distance rates subsidize local rates. We have higher long distance rates and lower local rates.
There have been two recent studies. One study was in Europe by the European Consumers Association. Another study was by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, showing that Canada had lower rates.
We had a subsidy system and what happened? Who were the winners and losers? The people who made long distance calls had to pay a bit more, not a lot more because we are competitive according to the OECD but they had to pay a little more. Who are these people? You and I and the people who make the occasional long distance call, but by and large it is the big corporations who make the most long distance calls.
Who makes the local calls? It is the ordinary person. It is the local people and small business that make most of the local calls. Since we have had deregulation through the CRTC and through the ideological position of the government, we are now getting pressure to have higher local rates and lower long distance rates.
The phone companies say they cannot have lower long distance rates and still keep the same rates for our local calls. They have to survive somehow so they put up the local calls. Long distance calls come down, local calls go up. The winners are big companies; the losers are small businesses and individuals.
We told the CRTC until we were blue in the face and it still went ahead and did it. I challenge members of this House, both Liberals and Conservatives, to rebut this. Show me where competition has made the prices go down for the average person.
Bell Canada has applied to the CRTC for a rate increase. If its application is accepted, local rates will
Government Orders
jump as much as 65 per cent. BC TEL in my neck of the woods in British Columbia has asked for substantial rate increases as well, not only in their local rates but in directory assistance charges and service calls. Alberta Government Telephone also applied for a 30 per cent increase in local rates. I could go right across the provinces-up local rates, down long distance rates.
I want to say something to the unions that were involved in this. I worked in the past with the TWU, the Telecommunications Workers Union from British Columbia with my friend Rodney Hiebert and the people at that union. I addressed them directly on this. I also addressed the CEP, formerly the Communications Workers Union of Canada, which is the Bell union based in eastern Canada. We worked together. We told these unions and they told us that this would happen, that local rates would go up, long distance rates would go down and the average consumer would lose out.
They tell me that there is a B.C. corporation-is it B.C. Rail-involved with Unitel. They wonder what an agent of the British Columbia government, which after all is a progressive government, is doing with Unitel. I wondered too, quite frankly. What is it doing with Unitel? It is going to force up local rates for ordinary people. There is no way out. If long distance rates are lowered local rates have to be raised or the phone companies will go out of business. It is hurting the average individual. We should not have allowed the competition in long distance rates. People say it is inevitable and it had to be done. Nothing is inevitable.
We have a system in Canada where 98 per cent of people use the phone. We have a system where we have equality, where people in the north have more or less the same prices as people in the other areas. We will have a future system where the beneficiaries will be some big businesses in the major cities. The people in the rural areas and in the north will be paying more money. I predict that is what is going to happen. It is going to be the same with long distance rates.
When are the Canadian people going to wake up? They have seen what deregulation of the airlines did. The post office was practically deregulated and we have seen what that has done. Now we have seen what deregulation of the telephone industry has done and that is going to mean higher prices for the average Joe. That is what it means.

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
I also see that according to the government's own report-I love the way this is put: "The annual rate due to such changes"-that is the rates going up-"could amount to a drop-off rate of 2,500 to 7,500 subscribers across Canada". A drop-off rate of course is a nice way of saying that your aunt cannot afford her phone any more. Ninety-two per cent of Canadians were satisfied with their service.
I do not know but maybe I am too much of a conservative. I guess that is my problem. I believe if something is working, if it is not broken, why fix it? Why fix it so Mr. Rogers and his big business associates who contribute to the Conservative Party in a big way get their share? That is what it is. Who suffers but the average Canadian consumer?
We are not going to let this bill go so easily to committee. People want to know. People come to me in Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody in my riding, to my friend from northern Ontario and my friend from Nanaimo and say: "Look at these bills. My cable rates are going up". I showed them how they could say no, that they did not have to take the cable rates, but Rogers was not going to tell them that. Their cable rates are going up.
Now they are coming to me and saying: "My phone rates are going up but my pay cheque is not going up, and I am paying more in taxes. What is going on?" I will tell you what is going on. It is a pay-off to the friends of the Conservatives in this place. They say it is globalization and so on.
There is another reason why this bill should not be allowed second reading and it has to do with the North American free trade agreement, NAFTA, the agreement that the government is about to enter into without any real support from the Canadian people. It is a very smart government, is it not? Basically the free trade agreement fails because we lose employment, so what does the government do? We will sign another one with Mexico. Now that takes real brains, but the government proposes to do it.
The North American free trade agreement will grant foreign companies access to or the use of Canadian telecommunications networks and services "on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions". That is the phrase, reasonable and non-discriminatoiy terms and conditions. When I see a phrase like that I worry. In other words, on terms and conditions no less favourable than those accorded to Canadian companies.
The chapter goes much further. It limits the terms and conditions that Canada will be able to impose in the future. Here is the kicker. Specifically legislators will be required to ensure that prices charged for telephone services are based on the economic costs directly related to providing such services. Although NAFTA would allow cross-subsidization between our existing telephone companies to continue, we will not be able to require resellers to make the contribution payments that are necessary to support universal service.
This bill does nothing to prevent the erosion of cross-subsidization. The bill actually encourages deregulation regardless of its effects on consumers and small businesses. In fact it takes us even further. We get into the free trade agreement which will make it impossible for any future government, any progressive government that may happen to be elected to make changes, any government that wants to come to the defence of the Canadian consumer.
We need a system where we pay attention to the universality in services. This is a big country and it is a northern country. That means we have to serve the people in northern and rural areas. They have to have communications. We have to keep the cost as low as possible.
We have to take our big companies like BC Tel and Bell and help them compete in the international scene where it really matters for Canada. That is the basis for a communications policy that is different than the policy of the government. That is why we in the New Democratic Party differ with the government on this bill.
I could go on and give other reasons why the bill should not go to committee but I have finished. I will close by making a plea on behalf of the poor consumers of Canada who are getting it put to them on cable rates and phone rates. I ask the government to please listen to their voices. Cut this ideology of deregulation and stop harming a very good phone system by this nonsense of
April 19, 1993

helping your friends in Unitel and the other places and putting it to the Canadian consumer.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam. He now has the pleasure of being the critic in matters of justice but he was the critic in telecommunications and culture prior to that. I know he has some very strong feelings about the role and place of cable and what we should be doing with respect to cable and the question of convergence with regard to cable and telephony. I am curious to know if he is satisfied with the covering of the concerns of the cable and telephone industries. Why does he consider this bill to be a total deregulation? I believe the most important aspect of this bill is to provide a universal, affordable and accessible telephone system for Canadians at the local level. Protection of that service is inherent and must be pursued. While we are interested in telecommunications as the most forward-moving technology for the pursuit of improved jobs and job creation, it is not at the cost in any way, shape or form of a universal, accessible and affordable telephone system for all Canadians.
If the hon. member thinks this is under threat and a total deregulation, I wonder if he would pursue that matter somewhat or clarify it at least.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I must acknowledge the expertise of my colleague, the member for Mount Royal who is the Liberal critic in this area and has consistently followed this issue in the committee. I pay tribute to her for that. She is a very keen observer of this area.
May I just take a moment in responding to this? The hon. member has difficulty with my riding. I used to represent the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway. Due to redistribution and the movement to the suburbs I now represent a riding called Port Moody-Coquitlam, which is an eastern suburb about 30 kilometres from Vancouver. It is snuggled up against the west coast mountains and is a very beautiful, booming and dynamic community. Port Moody was the terminus of the transcontinental railway where the first train came until, of course, the real estate developers thought they could make more money in Vancouver and moved the terminus into Vancouver, according to Pierre Burton. That is the
Government Orders
riding, Port Moody-Coquitlam. Coquitlam means salmon in Indian. It is a very nice name. It is a very fast-growing area with lots of cable subscribers and lots of telephone users.
I too am committed, as I think the hon. member is committed, to an affordable system, universal and so on. In my speech I was pointing out the dangers. I pick up principles in this bill that extend and use the wording again of deregulation, of the kind of neo-conservative agenda of government. I think that is a real concern in communications. I think it will lead us in the wrong direction.
There is an area for competition in communications. There is also an area for working with our stronger companies and using regulation and sometimes restraint of trade to help them. I am thinking of Bell. I took a lot of flak by saying that in the House. I tried to explain it today on the basis of building up the strongest companies and then competing at the international level where the real competition is.
As I said, the hon. member is more of an expert than I am with regard to cable. I will listen carefully when she speaks further on this matter here and in committee. However, it seems to me that the wording of the bill and some of the phrases lead into this deregulation language. That again leads to the problems we had in communication, which can be specifically seen in how we have a system where cable is half regulated and other parts are not. There is an 8 per cent increase and then a 300 per cent increase in the area that is not regulated. The phone seems totally regulated, but there is a push to get more money for local services. It seems to me we are putting ourselves into that bind.
I think we have to look at the fundamental principles before we can vote on the principle of a telecommunications bill like this.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can just make a comment and then ask the member a quick question. Clause 7 of Bill C-62 states:
It is hereby affirmed that telecommunications performs an essential role in the maintenance of Canada's identity and sovereignty and that the Canadian telecommunications policy has as its objectives

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
(a) to facilitate the orderly development in Canada of a telecommunications system that serves to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, social, political and economic fabric of Canada;
At the same time I look at the Wall Street Journal of Tuesday, February 9, 1993 and see the AT&T advertisement essentially saying that in 1993 the border between Canada and the U.S. will no longer be a barrier.
AT&T has purchased an operating interest in Unitel, the corporation directly responsible for the breakdown and deregulation within the telecommunications system. I wonder if the member would comment on whether he thinks this act protects Canada's identity and sovereignty. Will the culmination of the free trade agreement, the North America free trade agreement and this bill further erode the sovereignty in the areas of communications and transportation within Canada?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The problem is that we will not be able to require resellers of services to make the contribution payments necessary to support the universal service, in other words to cross-subsidize the local rate. The resellers will be people like AT&T.
AT&T, American Telephone and Telegraph, the largest company in the world could swallow the Canadian market in a hiccup. Its advertisement in the Wall Street Journal said: "In 1993 this border will no longer be a barrier". In other words, these companies will be allowed to come into Canada under this legislation as resellers. They will not have to cross-subsidize the lower markets. This will erode the first principle of the bill the member read and will lead to increased foreign control of our Canadian market just as we are doing in the airline industry.
Soon we will not have the Canadian border at all. It will be gone and these large companies will come in. If we want to have an independent country we have to fight for it. If we want to continue to have legislation and deals like this we are going to lose this country. That is what we are saying and why we are opposing this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before resuming debate it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough-Veterans Affairs; the hon.
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Montreal Economy; the hon. member for Don Valley East-Cyprus; the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception-National Defence; the hon. member for London East-Municipal Taxation.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate on Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications. It addresses so many concerns and complaints I have been hearing at the constituency office, town hall meetings as recently as last week, and from just talking to businesses and individual residents within Parkdale-High Park.
The concerns that have been raised fall into about five categories which are CB radios, unscrupulous advertising between post office and Bell telephone, unscrupulous telemarketing techniques, the PC Cops computer automated dialing program, which I want to share with the House and junk mail.
I agree that this is a very important bill. The direct advertising industry employs 100,000 Canadians. There are a lot of jobs in the high tech area. It generates over $20 billion in revenues. It truly is the railway into the year 2000 and beyond. This bill will probably start laying the rails and the new super tracks for this direction.
Our critic for the Liberal Party stated the importance of this bill when she said: "Canada needs a harmonized set of rules and regulations to give all Canadians equal access to telecommunications and the information revolution". That sums up the importance of this bill.
Let us look at the process this bill has undergone. I recall when the former Minister of Finance addressed this issue in his 1984 budget. I am looking at the date by the table officers. It says April 19, 1993. Where have we been since 1984?
Other budgets have addressed this. Then the Minister of Communications introduced the bill on February 27, 1992. Today it is April 19, 1993. Where has the minister been for 14 months? For 14 months the bill has not been touched. I can lay it two to one that before the debate is over on this bill, the minister will probably bring in closure or time allocation limiting debate on this important and extensive bill.
April 19, 1993

Let me begin with the first set of concerns my constituents have been calling me about, which is the whole area of CB radios. When we were in government an owner of a CB radio had to buy a licence. It was registered so it was known who the owner of that radio was, the serial number of the CB radio, et cetera. Then the Conservative government came in and in its almost psychotic move to deregulate everything, deregulated the need for CB ownership and use. Now anyone can go into a store, a child of eight or nine or any person, purchase a CB radio and go on the air with no regulations and no holds barred.
I had a problem with two organizations competing for the same airwaves and running quite a feud over the airwaves so all the rest of the people could listen in. If it was just innocent listening I would not mind but there was a blockage of the airwaves. They would set screechy noises up to the radio microphone so no one could hear what the words were.
Then came the swearing and cursing. This was not language fit for the airwaves. I addressed this to the former Minister of Communications and the present minister. To date, nothing has been done. I must give some credit to the bureaucrats. They came to Parkdale and tried to bring some peace to the airwaves but they could not.
Then came the harassment of women. I thought I had heard everything, but I have never heard such foul language as I heard on the CB airwaves in my own riding. The foul language was harassing women. What some of these men on the radio waves did to debase women is not what I want in Canada. I see the minister shaking his head. That is not what he wants for Canada. We want standards in Canada for the telephone, the radio airwaves and in the press. This is why Canada was named the number one country by the United Nations last year. It is because we did have standards, whether those standards concerned TV, radio or telephone.
However, two ministers could not eliminate the kind of harassment some of the women in my riding of Parkdale-High Park are still putting up with. I am not pulling this out of the air. I asked people who were harassed to send me copies of the tapes. One person did.
Government Orders
I shared some of those copies with our critic and then sent them directly to the minister.
This has been going on since I was re-elected in 1988. We cannot clean up the CB airwaves. What kind of a government are we? If we cannot clean up this kind of harassment of women in our society, we are not fit to govern. I hope the minister, who although he is not sitting in this House I am sure is watching this debate on TV, will take it to heart. Hopefully this bill will also assist in helping us to clean up the airwaves for the CB radios.
The second group of complaints I have been getting and which this bill addresses concerns the unscrupulous uses of advertising. I am not talking about the strict telemarketing techniques. I am talking about what is going on between a Crown corporation, Canada Post, and Bell Canada.
The postal person delivers flyers to people's homes. I am sure it does not happen only in my riding where unemployment is so high. It is the first time in history that the unemployment rate in a large city like Toronto is higher than the national average. It is heart-breaking to see these people, who have used up their unemployment insurance and do not want to go on welfare, come begging for jobs. They get a flyer delivered to the door and what does it read? "Employment opportunities. Make up to $500 a week, guaranteed $15 an hour". Who would not jump at that? If I were unemployed and using up my UI and did not want to go on welfare would I not read this flyer? Would I not do what this flyer instructs me to do?
What happens with this flyer that is delivered to our homes by the post office? Someone who is unemployed will pick up the phone and call, all excited because there is a job waiting, but it is a scam. By making that call the person has to pay $10 minimum. The person is unemployed and has used up his or her UI. Some are on welfare and some do not want to go on welfare. However, we get these jokers pulling a scam like this on hundreds and thousands of Canadians. Is that what Canada is all about? Are those the standards we want in our country? Is that what we are all about?
The scam is that $10 is paid but there is no job in the end. There is a special 1-900 phone number to call and they are asked to send a resume. They send a resume but they do not hear from these people. A whole year goes

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
by and still there is no job. It is a scam. I do not know what else to call it.
The poorest of this country's poor are being taken because of this government's psychosis to deregulate everything. "Private enterprise can do it all. Government has no role. It should not interfere." It is time that someone does interfere to clean up the mess the Tories have got this country into over the last nine years. I would hate to think what would happen to Canada if they were in government for another nine years.
I apologize for speaking with such strength and almost anger. When one sees how these people have been taken it does make one cry.
Let us look at the telemarketing advertising techniques themselves, which are increasing. Most of the complaints I receive are about these. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood admitted that he had used this technique himself to promote his single tax system. At least he was polite enough to tell the listener very early in the message: "If this message is not for you, please hang up".
It still does not stop the phone from being in use. Last week I had appointments in my constituency office. The other lines were busy but I thought the main line was open. I picked it up and there was a telemarketing message. I had to wait 10 minutes before I could use my own telephone. Because my telephone is controlled by the computer, it tied my constituency line up for 10 minutes. I really have a question of privilege because my duties as a member of Parliament were being denied. My carrying out my role and calling my constituents was hampered by this technique.
There is no need for that. CRTC can set a time limit on these messages. They do not have to be 10 minutes. They could be one-minute messages or maybe two minutes maximum. If you cannot say what you want to say in one minute then do not say it. We make a lot of statements before Question Period in this House of Commons and they are one-minute statements. I think we say quite a bit in that one minute.
One complaint I received from a constituent was that she was trying to get a doctor but could not because her phone was tied up with a telemarketing message. Someone complained because they could not get a 911 number during an emergency. Let us say there is an emergency
and a child is suffocating or someone has a heart attack and minutes count. Seconds count. One cannot wait 10 minutes for that telemarketing message to finish before dialing 911 or phoning emergency.
Is that what we want in our country? Are those the standards we want? I say no. Then there are the complaints I get from the owners of cellular telephones. They are in the car and get a telemarketing message. They do not like it so they hang up but the message goes for 10 minutes. What do they pay for, one minute? No, they pay for 10 minutes. Is that fair?
I understand the bill is going to address some of these problems. If it does, I will support this bill. This bill can address a lot of the issues I am raising here. They are people issues. They are not fictitious issues. They are day-to-day people issues, issues affecting people daily.
That is why I am so pleased we have such a strong critic on our side. Any time I received one of these complaints and referred it to her she followed it up. I see a lot of those concerns brought in to the bill. Whatever the committee was doing or saying, I think someone has been listening.
Let me give an example of where this technology can be useful. I am not blocking modem technology or future technology, no. That is the route we have to go. I think that is where the jobs are for Canadians in the future. We should address this as a nation.
The problem with our education system is that it comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but who sets the direction for the country for the next 20 or 50 years? It should be the federal government laying out clear goals for the next 50 years. Then the provinces could build their curriculums based on these goals. Then we would have direction and would not be stuck with the 1.5 million jobless we have today.
I promised to give an example of how this technology can be used positively. The Metropolitan Toronto Police, No. 11 division is in my constituency and has introduced the PC Cops computer system. Groups such as the Neighbourhood Watch programs, the Sunnyside and the Swansea rate payer groups, High Park, Runnymede and Jane Street rate payers associations, Roncevalles, Bloor West Village, the Junction Business Association and the local Villager newspaper, all co-operated with the police on the PC Cops computer system.
April 19, 1993

This system asks people to register if they would like to be on this telemarketing system. It is a computer phone system. Everyone registered gets the messages. What kinds of messages are sent by computer? Messages if there is a missing child, if there is a break-in in the community, assaults. Everyone who is registered gets this call by computer. If there is any kind of criminal activity in the community, the whole community is notified and it does not take 10 minutes. The message is only one minute. If this bill were to do anything to limit telemarketing messages to one minute then it would be doing a great service. These messages go through in 60 seconds. The introduction by the Metropolitan Toronto Police of this PC Cops computer program is an excellent use of this modem technology.
I do want to raise the concerns of Robert Morie and Ed Radonic from my riding. They have small businesses and they say their businesses are being interrupted with junk mail. The fifth issue I said I get a lot of complaints about is the junk mail on the fax machine. It really affects a small business when the fax machine is tied up continually with junk mail. We get faxes in Ottawa but again it is appropriate use of the fax machine. In the morning I see piles of fax sheets all the way down to the floor but they are about the present crisis in the former Yugoslavia where people have relatives and friends. They fax me messages because they are concerned about their relatives. Again I am not knocking this modem high technology. I think it is good, but let us put it to positive use.
I am glad the minister came in to the House. I am sure he will take the concerns of my constituents in Park-dale-High Park and address them in the bill so we will have a good bill in the end.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been in the House to hear what the hon. member has had to say. My colleague always brings some very interesting and serious concerns to the attention of this House. He is obviously one who listens very carefully to his constituents.
I was quite interested in what he had to say about what seems to be a serious abuse of this new technology. I think it could work in a very positive way in the interests of the consumer and the business world. I do not think they are necessarily mutually exclusive goals. I do think there should be informed consent and he put it best by
Government Orders
saying to put the names on a list, something of that nature.
I was intrigued while I was listening to the hon. member speak. I must say that some of the things he clarified in his presentation came as quite a surprise. I went back to see what the Privacy Commissioner had to say. He shares a lot of the hon. member's concerns, but he makes three fundamental points which are very important. I would hope the hon. member's constituents in terms of the concerns he has brought to my attention and to the attention of the people of Canada through his remarks today would find comfort in the observations of the Privacy Commissioner. Of course there has to be freedom of expression in this country. It is fundamental in the Canadian charter and is balanced by what is reasonable and justifiable in section 1.
The Privacy Commissioner said that the first ingredient would be that of informed consent. In other words, you know what you are asking for, you put your name on the list and therefore you agree that your name could be used. If you do not agree then they have no right to use it. The second was that it would not be costly. There would be a cost neutrality.
The hon. member talked about the fact that this was not cost neutral. It was an awful teasing. It was an unpleasant and unjust experience where people were looking for work and this fraud took place. There has to be some way in which it is cost neutral and we have a way of verifying what is the content in the message that is to go out. You cannot hide behind the fact that you do not know what the content is. I think that is the message the hon. member was giving. That would be found in the third agreement which the member says should be open and transparent.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. If informed consent, cost neutrality and openness or transparency were in place, would the hon. member agree that this new technology could be in the interest not only of the telemarketer but the constituents who would want to use this new technology?


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we need. There will be many bills related to and affected by this bill. If all that is put into place as recommended by the Privacy Commissioner, it would go a long way in satisfying the concerns of my constituents.

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
I mentioned the PC Cops program. Everyone knows they are registered. The police asked for contributions but they also stressed very clearly that they do not have to make a contribution to participate in the program. A financial contribution would be appreciated but it is not required for participation.
Many of my constituents have difficulty with English as new Canadians. They will call and unknowingly they are charged the $10. The $10 is in fine print down at the bottom. They phone looking for a job and then they get a $10 bill because it is hidden in small print. My constituents would certainly be very pleased if as our critic said these issues could be guaranteed.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given the opportunity to address this particular piece of legislation. Most Canadians who have been listening to my colleagues will by now have no doubt noted that this is a major piece of legislation. We are talking about an electronic railroad, something of which Canadians can be very proud in the future.
We are talking about a major industry. Over 100,000 individuals are affected in terms of jobs by the communications industry and there are over $20 billion of expenditures. It is really what one could consider a strategic industry for the future, for Canada, for Canadians. It will have good jobs, I hope long-term, well remunerated positions for young people and those who want to change employment.
I say that because I think it is particularly important we take the time to discuss this thoroughly. As I indicated it is a major piece of legislation.

This bill is very important in several ways. It is not only about the future but about good, well-paid, long-term jobs.
This is something that should be considered very seriously and carefully.

Some people are going to be asking why though. If my information is correct this was introduced over a year ago. It appears to have been stalled in terms of going to the legislative committee for some time. Why is there a
big rush at this particular point in time? I mean people will be asking the inevitable question: Was government not thinking this through? Did it not plan appropriately? I suppose some will say that there does not appear to be any particular raison d'etre, planification, rationalisation. Why the rush at this particular point in time?
There are some positive features in this bill that my colleagues have spoken about in an attempt to come to grips with a major industry in Canada, something that is growing and something that is here today and has been with us for some time but opens tremendous opportunities for the future.
Some concerns have been voiced. For example, I have received calls and correspondence from individuals who have wondered and have asked whether or not the local rates would in fact be affected as a result of the legislation. Will they increase and, if so, by how much? I have received some calls from seniors. These individuals sometimes want to use the telephone rather extensively because of limited mobility and what have you. I also received some from poor families, people who already have a great deal of difficulty meeting their objective to meet the daily needs of their families with their meagre resources.
Of course among those poor are single parent families most often headed by mothers. If local rates are going to be affected, if they are going to increase, if there are going to be substantial increases, we really need to be particularly concerned. I have assured them that I believe this is not necessarily the case. I hope what I have said is in fact correct. I certainly would like to have some confirmation of it.
Some other individuals have asked whether or not this is in fact a bargaining chip being used by the government in terms of its North American free trade agreement. Just to make sure that I reflect their views correctly, I want to quote what was said to me. They believe that this bill would lead to the selling off of our telecommunications industry and of course the loss of Canadian jobs, particularly today when we are in a recession and there are many people unemployed, well over 1.6 million people. There are great difficulties being experienced by Canadians who want to work. This is of great concern to those particular individuals, not only those who are unemployed but those who still have jobs and really want to be able to maintain them.
April 19, 1993

There again I would hope that this is not-and I believe it is not; if I am wrong I hope someone will correct me-an attempt to take the first step toward making sure that Americans can buy into this particular industry which I consider very Canadian. We happen to be in the forefront. We happen to be world leaders and I want us to stay there. I want to make sure that whatever progress is made can be made in co-operation with other countries, that we retain the leadership and that we continue to make the discoveries that are going to benefit Canada and Canadians generally.

As I just said, there is opposition from some people, and I mentioned two areas. Some people believe that residential telephone rates might go up. Of course there are those who wonder if this would lead to the selling off of our telecommunications industry or if the government as a result of a risky involvement with the United States might lose control of an industry which is perceived as "belonging" to Canada.

One thing these people have asked is: "What are you people going to be doing with this bill? Will you be supporting it?" Yes, we will, providing certain conditions are met. I just want to share with my colleagues and people who may be listening some of the concerns and some of the things we want.
Liberals continue to believe in a strong Canadian telecommunications system that provides universal, affordable, reliable and modem basic telephone service for Canadians from coast to coast. This is particularly important in a large country such as ours where often there are small communities isolated from larger centres and where there is a need to communicate.
As a result of our desire for this type of system, my colleagues in the Liberal Party and I agree that complete deregulation of this sector is not really in the public interest.
We also agree that Canada must have a regulatory system that meets Canadian goals. I think that is very important. It must meet Canadian goals and should not be weakened through either the North American free trade talks or the GATT talks. I think that is of exceptional importance. We can still be involved with NAFTA if that is to be the case and with GATT, but we
Government Orders
need to make sure that whatever happens we protect our own particular interests.
My colleagues and I also believe that this bill should provide a fresh direction for the telecommunications sector so it can maximize the benefits to every Canadian of the world-wide information revolution in terms of learning, literacy, education, training and communicating.
Let me just very quickly dwell on a few of the problems that have been brought to my attention. Some people would suggest that there needs to be some major changes. There are problems with the definitions clause, clause 2, for example how hybrid companies will be dealt with. On the power of direction, the government did establish power of direction. However it has also maintained the power to vary or rescind CRTC decisions at the same time which mitigates against that.
There are also concerns with respect to exemptions. For example, some of my colleagues and I are not convinced that exemptions for certain classes of carriers should be in the bill itself. As well the vary or rescind power by Governor in Council should be replaced we believe by the set aside or refer back power now in use. We believe this latter alternative is superior.
As well there are concerns about provincial consultation, tactical standards, ministerial authority to grant licences to carriers, and those are but some of the examples. I should point out that there are also no provisions in this bill for Canadian ownership and control of our telecommunications system. Although I understand there may be an ideological difference between the government and this party over that, there ought to be provisions for Canadian ownership and control of our telecommunications system.
I want to make the following point which I consider equally important. As this legislation proceeds I shall and so will my colleagues be working with colleagues from all parties for changes in the bill to ensure we maintain a telecommunications system which is Canadian owned, which enhances the international competitiveness of Canadian industry and which serves as a unifying communications link among all Canadians at this difficult time in our history. As I indicated before, I want to stress that while there are a number of positive features in this bill there are a number of opportunities to improve it. I do not pretend I have identified all the major concerns, but certainly if one looks at my remarks and the remarks of my colleagues that have been made in this House I think we can have a better final product.

April 19, 1993
Government Orders

As I just said, the government has taken some positive steps in certain sectors, but there are still some flaws that should be corrected. I would really like the minister and his government to listen not only to what I am saying but to what all of us have said in order to try if possible to correct, the situation, to be more responsive to Canadians' needs to ensure that it remains our system, that we can improve it, that we will keep the best jobs for Canadians and that we can remain leaders in this critical sector for Canada's future.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-621 should point out that part of the problem those of us in my party are having with this bill is that the minister in his remarks this morning made it very clear that the bill is going to need substantial changes. Yet it is difficult for us to be able to determine whether at second reading stage this bill should be allowed to go forward as is with the idea that there will be other perhaps substantial and substantive changes in the direction of the bill without knowing ahead of time exactly what those are.
I have a question for the Elouse and for the minister. If there are substantial and perhaps substantive changes to be made to this bill it might make more sense to simply withdraw Bill C-62 or leave it where it is until the time comes when the bill can in fact be set out to the House in the terms and direction in which the government wishes to take the bill.
It would certainly be handy from our point of view, if there have been substantial changes already drafted, to be able to look at some of those changes with respect to the bill before us. I say to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that I think it would be of assistance to those of us on this side of the House to know the direction in which it is going. Perhaps if there are going to be
substantial changes the minister might want to consider at this stage withdrawing the bill and putting forth the bill as it will ultimately be put forward.
In speaking directly on the bill I would like to refer to clause 7 of the bill. For the purposes of those watching the debate and for the purposes of those who will perhaps want to look at Hansard as bedtime reading in the future I would like to read clause 7 and make comments on it. It is the Canadian telecommunications policy and objectives.
It is hereby affirmed that telecommunications performs an essential role in the maintenance of Canada's identity and sovereignty in that the Canadian telecommunications policy has as its objectives
(a)	to facilitate the orderly development in Canada of a telecommunications system that serves to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, social, political and economic fabric of Canada;
(b)	to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible in both urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada;
(c)	to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness, at the national and international levels, of Canadian telecommunications;
(d)	to promote the ownership and control of Canadian carriers by Canadians;
(e)	to promote the use of Canadian transmission facilities for telecommunications within Canada and between Canada and points outside Canada;
(f)	to foster increased reliance on market forces for the provision of telecommunications services;
(g)	to stimulate research and development in Canada in the field of telecommunications and to encourage innovation in the provision of telecommunications services; and
(h)	to respond to the economic and social requirements of users of telecommunications services, including the protection of the privacy of individuals.
With the advance of technology, particularly transportation and communications technology, it is essential that we have an updated and upgraded telecommunications bill. We must have a bill that looks at what is in the present, learning from mistakes of the past, but with a view to the projections of what will or might occur in the future.
April 19, 1993

Certainly from the perspective of one who is not well versed in telecommunications matters, but like everybody else in Canada is well aware of how telecommunications has weaselled its way into our everyday living, the Canadian telecommunications policy appears to be a policy set out that can well do the job if in fact we set out our policies and our legislation as laid out in those eight particular subsections that I have read into the record.
Let us just analyse what has happened in Canada and what is happening at present. We can perhaps have a projection of what probably, as a result of the past and the present, will happen in the future.
Look at the policies of this government and the policies as set out in Bill C-62 coupled with the policies that it set out in the past through the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement. Are these going to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, social, political and economic fabric of Canada?
If we look at the direction that has been taken I question whether the sovereignty of our communications systems is being protected. Look at the over-all pattern of deregulation that has been a trademark of this government for the past eight and a half years in the transportation system and the privatization of such things as Canada Post. Have we protected our sovereignty within these areas? Have we enriched our social, cultural and political fabric?
I would suggest that we have not. If we look at the bill and at what is happening within the North American free trade agreement, then it appears that NAFTA would grant foreign companies access to or use of the Canadian telecommunications network and services on "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions". In other words, this would be on terms and conditions no less favourable than those accorded to the Canadian companies.
Government Orders
that developed and cross-subsidized local rates within the telephone network.
Here is what happened with Unitel. AT&T, the giant telecommunications network, has purchased a 20 per cent interest in Unitel and is using it as a method of getting into the Canadian telecommunications network.
This is of some concern to me. The bill itself protects Canadian companies in the situation where it will only allow 20 per cent of the telephone company to be owned by a non-Canadian or foreign company. That is positive. However, if we look at the advertisement of AT&T, it appears to show us that it considers this as a method of breaking down the border between the two countries. In fact, it is their first foot in the door. Their excess capacity in a corporation of that size is so substantial that it could swallow up the whole system within Canada without blinking an eye or without having to swallow particularly hard.
Let us look at clause 7 where it says:
to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services of
high quality accessible in both urban and rural areas
This brings up the problem of what has been called, within the area, cross-subsidization. It is the provision that allowed companies to use increased long distance rates in order to subsidize and ensure that regional disparities, where it cost more to take telephone lines into a rural area, are made reasonable so that everybody within that area has telephone service available to them. This included companies such as BC Tel in my home province, Alberta Government Telephone in Alberta, Bell Telephone in Ontario and in some of the other provinces as well as Sask Tel in Saskatchewan.
However, it also deals with local rates for basic telephone service. My colleague from Kamloops pointed out what was occurring in his area with respect to telephone rates. He pointed out in his speech a number of cities within the United States where there has been deregulation and what the local rates are there.
I look with some concern over the bid and I have If one recalls, the rates varied from something like $26 spoken on this before. I have presented petitions on up to $47 in various parts of the United States for local behalf of hundreds of constituents within my riding on telephone rates. However, in most areas in British the successful bid of Unitel to enter into the long Columbia the local telephone rates are anywhere in the distance market essentially on the backs of companies area from $11 to $14 or $15.

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
It is interesting that this debate should come up at this time because on April 12 I received a letter dated April 1, 1993 from the BC Tel Company signed by E.L. Patterson, the executive vice-president and chief operating officer. In the first paragraph he said: "Today BC Tel announced its intention to file an application with the CRTC early this summer for a general rate increase. We also applied today for interim local rate increases. The proposed interim rate increases range from $4.05 to $4.15 for residential customers and $3.05 to $4.15 for business customers".
During the debates and in the petitions that I presented to the House and that others in my party presented to the House, we constantly reminded the government of some of the experiences in the United States with deregulation within the communications networks down there and the probability that there would be a loss of jobs as well as increased local rates for telephone users.
If I go on with this letter from Mr. Patterson, I would quote two paragraphs within the body of that letter. He points out: "Historically telecommunications in Canada has been regulated by social rather than economic policy considerations. Local rates have been subsidized by long distance revenues in order to provide universal access to the telephone. In fact BC Tel cross-subsidizes local service with 60 cents of every dollar of long distance revenue. To achieve this subsidy the price of long distance service has been kept artificially high.
With the introduction of long distance competition this historical balance has been changed. Competition brings many benefits to customers. However, as competitors claim an increased market share, the subsidy available for basic service diminishes. While some competitors are required to contribute to local service, their contribution is significantly less than BC Tel. As well, few people realize that BC Tel is currently required to subsidize our competitors' entry into the market; competitors which now include AT&T, the world's largest telecommunications company".
If I go on and look at that one side it is obvious that the rates of local service are going up, as we predicted. If we look at one of the government's studies we can also see that there will be rate increases not only to consumers but to small businesses as well.
A briefing document from the Department of Communications discusses the effects of long distance competition. It says that the competition will require gradual decreases and cross-subsidization and therefore increased rates. This will hit residential and small business users hardest while big business users will benefit.
In the same briefing document the Department of Communications quotes a Peat Marwick study which suggested that local rate increases over five years of between 13 per cent and 93 per cent would be required. This would represent 2 per cent to 12 per cent per annum. It is interesting to note that this government document also mentions a drop-off rate and states that the annual drop-off rate due to such changes could amount to 2,500 to 7,500 subscribers across Canada.
What is a drop-off rate? It is simply a nice way to tell Canadians that this is the number of people who are no longer able to afford to have a telephone in their own home.
It seems that the affordability that is looked for in this legislation is slowly slipping away from not only the regular consumer but from the small business person who will have added costs as a result of this.
From the point of view of employment it is interesting that on April 16 Brian Canfield, the president of BC Tel, announced that the company is working to reduce its staff size by 4 per cent this year. It has already seen 422 employees accept volunteer separation packages.
In a news release Mr. Canfield said: "The entry into the Canadian market of the U.S. phone giant AT&T, which bought 20 per cent of Unitel after the CRTC last year approved Unitel's entry into the long distance field, added weight to BC Tel's argument that inflated long distance rates should not be used to subsidize artificially low local rates. It is ludicrous that BC Tel should be put
April 19, 1993

in a position where we must indirectly subsidize AT&T, the world's largest telecommunications company".
It appears that what is happening with the direction of telecommunications legislation and the telecommunications network in Canada is that it is becoming less affordable for Canadians and we are losing jobs as a result of the policies that have been set out. I hope the direction the government chooses shores up some of what has already been lost in ensuring that Canadians are granted sovereignty over their telecommunications systems and that Canadians are assured of affordable telephone and telecommunications systems within Canada.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some interest to the member's speech. One of the areas of concern that he has flagged is the situation as it relates to how employees of the different companies that are involved in telecommunications will be treated under the new legislation.
I am very interested in knowing from the member and his party how they feel this particular piece of legislation will adversely affect the working men and women who are involved in the telecommunications field.
In looking at the bill it seems to me that what we are doing is standardizing regulations in a broader sense. Instead of having all these different provinces being able to do their own thing they will have more consultation with the federal government and have a system that goes across the board. It is hoped that in the long term, it may not be so obvious in the short term, this will put in work rules for individuals across the board and give them the opportunity to be heard, and of course at the same time give them the kind of work rules we would like for our workers in Canada.
Being one of those people who advocates national standards and national rules, and I had assumed that the member who just spoke and his party felt the same way, I would be interested in knowing why the hon. member's party seems to think that this would be a step backward for workers in this particular industry instead of a step forward, as I think it is.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to look at the bill itself. I think the remarks I made at the start of
Government Orders
my speech made it very clear that the direction in which the government wants to go is so foggy that we cannot actually see where we are ultimately going to be as a result of the legislation.
I made suggestions that perhaps, as was done with the UI bill, this bill should simply be allowed to die. The direction the government wants to go should be put into a bill to give us some direction as to where it intends to take us in this legislation.
I agree with the member who posed the question that changes must be made in the legislation. There is no doubt about that. We are now in a situation where things have changed so substantially just within our lifetime that it is not good enough to try to depend on old legislation that is out of sync with what is happening nowadays.
If we look specifically at the regulation of the industry we can see that this legislation appears to be dumping off some of the responsibilities we have given to the CRTC in the past back into the political field. Every decision the CRTC will make from now on will be diminished with respect to regulation.
I am somewhat sceptical about whether it will help or hinder the proper regulation across Canada if we have constant interference of the politicians within the system as opposed to regulation by the CRTC.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, in his remarks the hon. member for Okanagan-Similka-meen-Merritt spent some time discussing the problems that some of the provincial telephone companies are having with government legislation relating to the forced integration of those companies' infrastructures into national services provided by competition from outside and inside the country.
We have a government that is very taken with maintaining the right to intellectual property under the GATT and has provided legislative changes in this Chamber up to and including extensions to copyright and patent legislation and eliminating our licence system for patented drugs. Can the member enlighten us as to why the government is pursuing that range of proposals securing the right to property and to systems that are in existence yet is attempting to create competition through the imposition of AT&T and Intertel, et cetera, on the provincial telephone systems? They are in effect being told to permit these people to use part of their lines and

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
systems so that people can rent their long distance charges.
Why does the member suppose the government has fallen off its very clear ownership set of principles in this case? Does it simply hate government-owned and provincially owned monopolies so badly that it is willing to close its eyes to that principle?


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very interesting question. One has to wonder whether the member did not give the answer himself in posing the question in that what we have seen over the past eight and a half years has been a government interested in privatizing everything, whether it be Canada Post, Petro-Canada, Air Canada or almost anything we want to name. It has tried to take away and denationalize everything and put it out into the private sector.
Dealing with intellectual property, it seems that the agenda has been somewhat controlled by large transnational corporations such as AT&T. Is this another situation like that of the drug patent bill where the large transnational drug corporations wanted to ensure and assure their profits for a longer period of time. Similarly, do the AT&Ts of the telecommunications world want to get their fingers on to a pulse which they see as being more lucrative and more profitable?
I would suggest to the member for Mackenzie that this is a projection of the policies we have seen of this government to break the backs of the small Canadian companies and allow the AT&Ts of this world ample access to the telecommunications network of Canada, including the research and development aspect of it.


Nicole Roy-Arcelin: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you first of all that I will share my time with the hon. member for York-Simcoe.
Canada's history illustrates the importance of communications as a means and condition for the nation's economic, social and cultural development. In fact, telecommunications is the first Canadian high-technology industry and provides an essential infrastructure for the economic development of the country.
Canada now has three main communications systems, those of Stentor, Unitel and Telesat Canada; two mobile cellular telephone systems; one overseas telecommunications system, Teleglobe Canada; 49 other telephone companies, located mainly in Quebec and Ontario; about 200 radio communication companies providing mobile radio-telephone and paging services; and finally more than 22 companies specializing in the resale of services.
The whole industry-that is, the above companies as well as the equipment manufacturers-does $23 billion of business and employs over 100,000 people and is one of the fastest growing sectors of the Canadian economy. More than 98 per cent of Canadian households have a telephone and public surveys invariably show satisfaction with the quality of service. The telecommunications industry has grown essentially in a monopolistic framework. The telecommunications company had a monopoly and provided all the facilities, services and equipment, from sophisticated transmission and switching facilities which were the very base of its system to the ordinary residential or business telephone set.
However, regulation by the various governments was extremely fragmented. It was based on a series of different regimes involving only one level of government: seven provinces regulated 30 per cent of the Canadian market, while the federal agency regulated the rest. Thus major interprovincial trade barriers made the Canadian market smaller and more fragmented than it should have been.
A decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in August 1989 clarified and simplified the sharing of jurisdiction. The court concluded that the main telecommunications companies in Canada, namely telephone companies in the Stentor system, come under federal jurisdiction. This ruling thus paved the way to an open Canadian market.
In the past few years, we saw the emergence of a very complex technological and economic environment contributing to the gradual elimination of traditional boundaries between telecommunications markets thus calling into question the traditional monopolistic approach.
The diversity within the Canadian telecommunications market, together with the requirements of globalization and stiffening international competition, made inevitable a re-evaluation of government policy and regulatory practices.
April 19, 1993

I would first like to say that the present world trend in telecommunications is toward gradual liberalization of market regulation and privatization of state owned telecommunications companies.
In keeping with this trend and given the small size of our domestic market compared to the markets of our main trading partners and the complex fragmented regulatory structure, the Canadian government thought that the country needed a policy that could apply to the whole territory and a more flexible regulatory regime that could encourage innovation and the faster development of our leading high-tech industry.
The foundation of this policy was laid in 1987 and is the framework for Bill C-62.
The CRTC's recent decision to allow competition in the long-distance market makes new telecommunications legislation even more necessary.

In conclusion, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1) I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of
adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill
C-62, an act respecting telecommunications.


Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-62 at second reading.
Canada today faces many great challenges. Technology and global economic forces are exerting a pervasive influence on all aspects of our lives. They are changing the nature of the goods and services we produce and the markets in which they are sold.
Globalization is also affecting the kind of jobs we have and the way we make a living. To an increasing degree the goods and services we produce are exported and the companies and workers we compete with are in foreign countries. These global economic and technological forces are making every country look more to trade for economic growth and the creation of new sources of wealth and jobs.
We can no longer afford to depend solely on our resource industries to carve out a place for ourselves in the new world economy. In the decades ahead we will
Government Orders
have to depend on our educational institutions, our highly skilled work force, our creativity and our ability to innovate to ensure that we continue to grow and prosper.
Telecommunications now plays a central role in many of these global economic and technological developments. We cannot hope to compete in the world information economy of the nineties and beyond without a strong telecommunications industry and a modem and efficient telecommunications infrastructure.
A critical step in this process is to update our outmoded telecommunications legislation and streamline the regulatory and policy making processes. The Railway Act, the principal statute by which the telecommunications industry is currently regulated, was enacted some 84 years ago in 1908 long before the computer, the microchip, the satellite, the optical fibre or the laser were invented. This gives you an idea why Bill C-62 is so important to all Canadians.
Bill C-62 provides a comprehensive legislative and regulatory framework for telecommunications that will ensure Canada keeps abreast of improvements in productivity and industrial competitiveness in the future.
This legislation will provide the industry with a more modem and efficient regulatory process by establishing a single, national legislative framework. The bill will streamline the regulatory process by giving the CRTC an important new tool, the power to forbear from regulating services which are subject to fair and equitable competition and is in the public interest. It will also provide a power to issue directions to the CRTC on general policy matters to support and enhance the principles laid out in the telecommunications policy objectives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I apologize because I did not understand the motion tabled by the hon. member for Ahuntsic. It is moved by the hon. member for Ahuntsic that pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), the House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

April 19, 1993
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And fewer than 15 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: As fewer than 15 members have risen in objection to the motion, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1) the motion is adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Cole: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, this bill will provide power to issue directions to the CRTC on general policy matters to support and enhance the principles laid out in the telecommunications policy objectives. The bill will also empower the Governor in Council to review, vary or rescind CRTC decisions as is presently the case. It will safeguard Canadian ownership of one of our most important industries.
Finally, it will provide for the establishment of technical standards for telecommunications facilities and require the CRTC to give effect to such standards. I just want to comment that Bill C-62 is important legislation that enjoys strong and far-reaching support from both the industry players and consumers. It has implications for the competitiveness of our companies and industries as well as for job creation and economic renewal. I would urge all members in the House to give it most serious consideration.
While I am on my feet I would like to move:
That the question be now put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The motion is in order.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents in Sudbury to discuss proposed legislation and to scrutinize it on behalf of all Canadians.
Bill C-62 is an important bill. New telecommunications legislation is absolutely essential and has been needed for some time. It is also extremely important this legislation be done right because it has taken a very long time for it to come forward. We certainly do not want it to be handled in a willy-nilly fashion in order to push it through this place without it being appropriate.
As the 21st century approaches, Canadians find themselves in a world changing more rapidly than ever before. Global competition is upon us. We realize that successful nations in the years ahead will be those that understand and take advantage of the changes taking place.
The rapid growth of international trade and capital flows have created the so-called borderless world and Canada must find ways to ensure it is a winner in this new global economy. For this reason we on this side of the House will continue pursuing policies of reform here at home, reforms that will make Canada stronger, more united, and more competitive around the world.
The changes in the world economy are nowhere better reflected than in today's changing telecommunications industry. Global networks and players are changing the telecommunications universe and reinforcing the idea of a global village. If communications created the global village then telecommunications today is shrinking the global village.
Not only is this industry's own structure evolving, it is also playing many new roles. New technology, new protocols and new services are letting individuals and corporations use telecommunications services more and more often, whether it is a fax machine, automated bank teller, toll free phone call or computer sharing information on a network. Small, medium and large corporations use telecommunications to link offices, reach customers, and move billions of dollars of capital around the world daily on an instantaneous basis.
In short the age of our telecommunications system serving for simple phone calls is over. It has become an important building block in Canada's competitiveness and the unifying communications link among Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
The telecommunications sector is an essential tool for building vital economic and social links, marshalling industry, social, educational and cultural forces into an efficient national system of communication among Canadians of all regions.
April 19, 1993

Telecommunications can boost the competitive position of industries in all regions by making it possible to locate knowledge-intensive and service sector enterprises of the future in all parts of Canada. It is especially important in a country such as ours which is far-flung. Some communities are looking for ways of participating in the 21st century.
Let us look at what we are seeing today in BUI C-62. It appears as if the minister would like the House to deal swiftly with the bill which he introduced over a year ago on February 27, 1992 and which he is only at this time advancing for second reading.
We in the Liberal Party have supported this bUl going to committee but we said at the outset we wanted assurances that the minister planned changes to the bill as virtually everyone in the telecommunications industry has said are necessary. Until today and for 14 months that has not been forthcoming.
I wonder why the minister has not made some amendments to this bill. We are all very much aware they are needed, as is everyone in the industry. I have very little understanding why absolutely no changes were made to this proposed legislation.
We have some serious problems with the fact that the minister and his government have delayed this bill, not the opposition. The minister has had the tools at his disposal for over a year to build a national consensus on this bill and he has not done it.
The minister has had a very useful senate pre-study report in his hands since June 1992 and has failed to act on it. The minister has faded after 14 months to undertake a serious constructive effort that would have built a consensus on this bill and enabled it to come forward in a way that would have been good for the telecommunications industry, Canadian business and Canadians. That is how I see this process.
It should be a constructive open process and not one of delay. I want the record to clearly show that the government controls the agenda in this House. The opposition does not. Let the responsibility for this bUl
Government Orders
languishing on the back burner be on the minister's shoulders.
I certainly hope we do not start hearing outside this place that somehow the opposition has been responsible for the mishandling and delay of this bUl. The minister was unwUling to bring it forward. I want that to be absolutely clear.
We take telecommunications issues just as seriously as we do the parliamentary process. We are not a rubber stamp here to approve a flawed bill. It is not the opposition but the minister who is responsible for coming in at the eleventh hour with his bill asking us to trust him on the amendments. It becomes very difficult for anyone to support a bill going to committee when the minister himself raises questions about it.
Having said that, we put the interests of Canada above the minister's messy handling of this bill and we want it to go to committee. Why is this bill important?
Let me address for a moment why this bill is important. Telecommunications is Canada's electronic railroad for the 1990s. It employs more than 100,000 Canadians and generates over $20 billion in revenues. It has emerged as an important and strategic industry for our entire economy.
The bill can help us create the knowledge and intensive high technology jobs of the future. It can help Canada locate these jobs where people are, which is often outside traditional business centres and particularly in our regions.
All this cannot happen by itself. As an industry that remains highly regulated, the telecommunications sector requires the appropriate policy, legislative and regulatory environment in which to succeed. This is why Bill C-62 with proper amendments and improvements is a fundamentally important bill. It is also why we are so disappointed that it took nine years for the government to produce this bill and almost another full year before getting to second reading.
These delays say a great deal about the Conservative commitment to telecommunications. The delays and inaction going back to 1984 were not only poor public policy choices at the time but over time have contributed

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
to a closed door, behind the scenes decision-making process that in the end led us to a flawed bill.
In addition to these flaws, the government's failure to lead a national discussion of telecommunications policy means Canada has never developed a clear strategy. This government never sat down, looked at the telecommunications industry, studied all of its various component parts, compared how they worked together and came up with some clear directions.
That is the approach that should have taken place. It is a view that was supported by a number of witnesses to the Senate pre-study hearings on this bill. In our view, once a strategy was developed the government opposite could have taken directions from that for drafting a bill. Unfortunately we are now stuck with the results.
We have no national strategy but we have a flawed bill that needs a lot of work. Never was there a white paper, a green paper, any coloured paper or any thorough public review of telecom issues. Never did this government ask the people of Canada: "What are your goals? What do you want to see from your telephone system?"
Never over the past nine years did we see an open process that said to the business community: "Come and have your say. Let us put your comments on the record before we draft a bill, not after".
The worst part is that despite glowing words from Conservative ministers, from the Minister for International Trade and the hon. member for Frontenac to Flora MacDonald and the Minister of Communications, they have never produced the vision to match the rhetoric.
Let us briefly review these commitments. We can go as far back as the trade minister's November 1984 economic statement when he said: "There is a clear need for national telecommunications policy to take advantage of the opportunities presented by rapidly advancing technology and the growing demand by Canadians for new telecommunications services". He added: "Through regulatory reform the government can spur innovation and provide a major stimulus to the Canadian economy". Yet there was never a bold strategy leading to this Bill C-62.
I can keep going back but I will not because it just repeats itself and we will see over and over the lack of strategy and over-all planning that has gone into producing this bill.
Our present minister tabled Bill C-62 in February 1992. Four months later he said at a Senate pre-study: "To delay its implementation", and he was referring to Bill C-62, "would be to slow the growth of an industry which is vital to the Canadian economy".
Yet it is over a year after introduction and this bill is only now coming forward for second reading in the House of Commons. Canadians can see that this government has left this industry in a substantial policy vacuum while pillars of the sector were developing extremely quickly. The government simply never kept up with the pace of changes. It never addressed how the environment was progressing and therefore never demonstrated a clear understanding of what needed to be done. That is why we have a flawed bill before this House today.
In essence this government left Canada labouring under century old legislation and a long series of ad hoc decisions affecting the pillars of this industry, the onset of competition, the privatization of Telesat and Teleglobe, and tremendous advances in technology and services, with no coherent or co-ordinated approach from government, something we have called on this government to produce for years.
What are we left with in Bill C-62? What should the goals of this bill be? The bill must provide a fresh direction to the telecommunications sector so that it can maximize the benefits to every Canadian of the worldwide information revolution in terms of learning and literacy, education, training and communicating. It must bring the marvels of this revolution from our biggest cities to our outermost communities. However this bill, as introduced last February, is far from what the country needs.
Let me turn to a number of issues raised in the bill, just some of the issues raised in the Senate's report because we cannot address them all today. Let me deal first with how the bill addresses jurisdiction.
We support the bill's attempt to unify national jurisdiction over telecommunications. We supported the Supreme Court in August 1989 when it ruled in the AGT case largely in favour of federal jurisdiction over telecommunications.
Liberals believe Canada needs harmonized rules and regulations governing this sector if all Canadians are to have equal access to the benefits of the information revolution. How the transition rules work and how regional sensitivities are taken into account certainly must be studied at committee.
April 19, 1993

Clause 2 concerns definitions. In terms of definitions there was much study in the Senate on this question. I believe it is worth examining more closely how resellers are treated in this bill in terms of whether they should be included in the bill but then be considered for relief from the act where appropriate through either the exemption or the forbearance provisions. That must be explored.
We also need to see how the so-called hybrid companies will be dealt with. They are companies that may be part reseller but own some facilities and are therefore part carrier. This too must be cleared up at committee. As the CRTC said in the Senate the ambiguity in the definition must be removed by clearly setting out what is meant to be included and excluded.
As for power of direction, the government did establish a power of direction providing for broad policy directives to be issued by the Governor in Council as guidance to the CRTC in the Broadcasting Act. Having that in this bill for telecommunications matters is not a surprise. It raises a red flag of concern when the minister is establishing this new power of direction in telecom matters and maintaining the power to vary or rescind CRTC decisions at the same time. We do not want the CRTC becoming a rubber stamp for the minister if he has so much control over the process. That is our concern.
The question of exemptions from the act must be examined very closely. I agree with the Senate report that the CRTC should deal with exemptions when they come up. I am not convinced that specific exemptions for certain classes of carriers should be in the bill itself. If certain classes of carriers are worthy of exemption then the CRTC can certainly deal with this appropriately. Why do they have to be permanently in this bill?
On provincial consultation, in this transition to uniform national regulation of telecommunications, because of the Supreme Court's 1989 AGT ruling, it would be useful to have a mechanism for regional input. However, clause 14 dealing with provincial consultation must not create an open-ended, almost veto power over federal decisions that would inhibit an effective national telecommunications policy from working. Exactly what limits are appropriate under this clause must be carefully examined at committee.
Government Orders
Under clauses 17 and 23 concerning the minister's licensing of carriers, I have great difficulty with the minister grabbing so many new powers in this bill, in particular his idea of licensing carriers. First, we have never been convinced of the benefits of licensing at the same time that the CRTC is regulating communications carriers. The question is: Why politicize entry into this market? Why give the power to issue, renew and revoke licences if the licence in the minister's opinion furthers the bill's telecom objectives for Canada when the CRTC would still have to do the regulating anyway? It adds a layer of red tape that is not helpful and places the minister in the middle of a process that should be left up to the CRTC.
Again these straightforward arguments would have been clear to the government had it bothered to undertake an open public dialogue on these issues long before depositing a bill before Parliament. They are heavily supported by a number of interventions at the Senate hearings on Bill C-62. The suggestion to remove licensing altogether or to move it to the CRTC requires further attention.
What are extremely important are our Canadian ownership rules. If the minister is set to remove licensing from this bill then we will need to see how the criteria and objectives of the licensing regime will be met. Canadian ownership and control is one of the key areas. We believe we need to do everything we can to foster a strong, dynamic Canadian telecommunications system. We need to make sure our own people, our own workers, our researchers and scientists, our own manufacturers, software and hardware designers, all have a chance to prosper and remain on the leading edge of technology.
Putting Canada first is not the right way to put it, nor is closing the door to having Canada telcos participate in global alliances. We cannot stand in the way or stop globalization. What we say is let us make sure there are sufficient safeguards in place so that Canadian interests are protected so that when foreign companies come net benefits to Canada are top priority.
Security will definitely have to be paid to have the 80 per cent domestic ownership requirements work, how the grandfathering will work and how future ownership changes of any other company fits these new rules. We have to ensure that this bill serves Canadians and the Canadian telecommunications industry. It is absolutely

April 19, 1993
Government Orders
essential that this be the best possible bill we can put forward to serve the future needs of Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.
During the ringing of the bells:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the opposition Whip to defer the division until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the recorded division on the question now before the House stands deferred until after Question Period tomorrow, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

It being 6.08 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.08 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 20, 1993