INDY Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, December 4, 1997

• 1539

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order, resuming from this morning the order of reference of the House—consideration of Bill C-17.

I will ask the department officials to join us at the table, please. We have with us, from the Department of Industry, Mr. Larry Shaw, deputy director general, telecommunications policy branch; Allan MacGillivray, director, industry framework, telecommunications policy branch; and that's definitely not Michael Binder.

Mr. Larry Shaw (Deputy Director General, Telecommunications Policy Branch, Department of Industry): Mr. Binder is unable to come today.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Shaw, maybe you could introduce the other officials you have with you.

• 1540

Mr. Larry Shaw: Yes. With me are Millie Nickason, legal counsel to Industry Canada from Justice Canada,

[Translation]

and Thierry Husson, a political officer in our office.

[English]

The Chair: I just want to remind committee members that there is an anticipated vote at 5.30 p.m., which means bells will go at 5:15 p.m., so if we could.... Pardon?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): At 5.10 we're gone.

The Chair: Well, no, the bells will start at 5.15 p.m.

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): If we can make it.

The Chair: If we can be finished before then, that would be good; otherwise we'll be coming back after the vote. I just want everyone to keep that in mind, as to the brevity of their comments. However, it's a very complex bill and if we have to come back, we will be back after the vote.

That being said, I would like to open the floor first to the department. I understand there are a couple of things, in light of all the witnesses who have appeared before us. Perhaps you could clarify a few issues for us, to start.

Mr. Larry Shaw: Madam Chair, I thought we would probably be doing that at clause-by-clause.

The Chair: You would rather we go into clause by clause and discuss them as we reach each clause?

Mr. Larry Shaw: Yes. In those areas where there may be some uncertainty, it may be best to deal with it there, at the individual clauses.

The Chair: Okay. Is that what the committee wants to do?

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): We mentioned this yesterday; it seems to me that I had clearly expressed the desire to get additional information before going on to the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

Moreover, is the only amendment proposed by the government the one found on page 5, clause 6?

[English]

The Chair: No, there are 14 amendments. The majority deal with clause 3, which just replaces different lines, and then with clause 6. Basically it's two different clauses. You don't have them in front of you?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka?

Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): I understand they are being collated and put together.

The Chair: Is that what they're doing? Okay. Maybe what we should do then is allow questions first, if there are any. If you have any questions to clarify issues that have come up over the last few days, perhaps for the first 15 minutes or so we can start with general questions to clarify issues. Then we will move to clause-by-clause.

Madame Lalonde, do you have specific questions you wish to ask right away?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: First of all, I would like to know whether the government accepts the introduction of the amendment on "international telecommunications services". Obviously, this text raises questions in my mind, but I do not know what to think because I do not have this amendment before me. Nonetheless, I can put the question.

[English]

The Chair: That is contained in the amendments, yes.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes. I would like to know whether, from the citizens' or consumers' standpoint, it would not be better to keep the clauses are they are without introducing the word "international". The CRTC, in any case, will establish categories of carriers who are likely to get licenses, and will be able to decide that there will only be international carriers, assuming there will be no other problems in what we call the domestic market. But if any domestic problems were to arise, then, we would have to make some amendments.

I understand the intention of large companies that presently operate on the domestic market. However, would it not be very careless, from the consumers' or the citizens' standpoint, not to reserve the possibility of requesting that the CRTC oblige carriers of some other category to obtain licenses?

• 1545

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: As originally proposed, the government did consider giving the CRTC that power. However, I think there has been very substantial discussion before this committee indicating that the open-ended nature of the licensing regime would create very real problems for people. The level of uncertainty that's created as to who is covered or who could potentially be covered creates a serious problem; it creates uncertainty.

I think there was also substantial testimony before the committee, particularly by Mr. Colville of the CRTC, indicating that in the domestic market, the commission had all the powers needed to deal with the problems that have emerged. Certainly with respect to resellers operating in the long distance market, the commission has been able to deal with all the problems consumers have faced in much the same way they've been able to deal with similar problems by facilities-based carriers.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Let me say that I am not totally satisfied with the answer. I find it strange that first of all, the department believed that it would be better to leave this up to the discretion of the CRTC in spite of the arguments put forward by the consumers, and then, it agreed with their arguments. Teleglobe Canada is very comfortable with that too.

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: Teleglobe identified a need for licensing with respect to international services and was silent on the question of domestic services.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: That's exactly what I'm saying.

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: Again, the idea was that it would be used for international and that the commission could perhaps use it in the future. Again as I noted, however, there has been substantial testimony before this committee that leaving it open-ended like that creates real problems that exist today for the members of the industry and, on balance, a power that may or may not be used. It's a sort of conditional power that creates real problems for the existing members of the industry, and it's not worthwhile.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I am not convinced, but I have understood what you just said.

[English]

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Madam Chair, just further to what Ms. Lalonde was saying, I specifically asked my questions that way to make sure I understood that the CRTC had all the powers needed to take care of the existing problems they had. Then, since this was a bill to remove the monopoly of Teleglobe and make some changes on how the whole telecommunications system could be more effective, they answered in the positive that this was exactly it. If you remember correctly, I asked those questions and they came back and clarified it: yes, it was focused in those two directions.

So I'm assuming the CRTC has all the powers it needs for the existing problems they have as the telecommunication industry develops. I understand there could be surprises down the road, but the way it is today, they're satisfied with their powers on that.

Mr. Larry Shaw: That was my understanding as well.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Okay.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Lalonde, have you another question?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Once again, I reply with the argument that, from the consumers' standpoint, this is not the same thing; from the citizens' standpoint, this isn't the same thing.

I think that our role consists not only in listening to large businesses, which probably could live with the Act as it stands, even if they would prefer that the situation be changed. We must not forget that in the United States, there is a licensing system. Many countries, which are not underdeveloped countries, have such systems and the CRTC would not cease being the CRTC if it were to grant licenses itself.

But from the standpoint of public services and the ability to intervene with the CRTC, it is not the same thing for consumers to be able to rely on what then would be in the Act rather than on what is in the Act now.

• 1550

Certainly the CRTC does have powers at this time, but I would say that this is very often a power to intervene after the fact, whereas we would hope that the conditions be specific and that they match the appropriate licenses.

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: A couple of points, Madam Lalonde. The commission operates on a prior approval basis. There's a requirement that tariffs by the Canadian carriers be approved before their going into effect. Those tariffs also establish conditions.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: The rates, yes.

Mr. Larry Shaw: Yes, the rates, but

[English]

the tariffs also establish the rules under which the resellers operate. Even though they are not regulated directly, they are regulated via their access to the resold facilities.

The problem is multiple layers of regulation. In the U.S., for instance, their principal form of regulation is through the licensing regime. We have an extensive regime of regulation independent of the licensing regime. That's the problem you get into in putting too many layers or too many forms of regulations into the same market.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I hope you'll correct me if I have misunderstood the Commission's presentation. As far as I have gathered, the Commission considers that it presently has sufficient power to manage or regulate, monitor, or rather supervise, the domestic market.

However, even without the divestiture of Teleglobe Canada, even without considering that, the Commission would like the Act to be amended, on account of the deregulation of the local market which entails, for instance, the need for numbering, which the present act does not provide for in any way.

The Commission also described to us other situations or problems for which it has no power to intervene because the Act does not stipulate that the CRTC has a mandate for this kind of thing. So, after all, it would have wished that the Act be amended.

If I understand correctly, this means that a licensing system for the domestic market, according to the CRTC, is not necessary given present market conditions. The market can be controlled and the CRTC only wants to keep the power to monitor activities in the domestic market.

However, the deregulation of this market has brought about new situations which the CRTC, under the current Act, has no mandate to affect. And that is the reason why clause 46 exists.

So, the CRTC did not see any need to implement a licensing system for the domestic market. Nonetheless, it is requesting extended powers to face the new problems brought about by the deregulation of the domestic market.

Have I understood correctly?

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: My interpretation is exactly the same as yours. To paraphrase what I believe the commission said, they were in favour of the licensing regime. They felt the licensing regime was required for international services. For the domestic market they felt their existing powers under the telecommunications law were adequate, subject to the addition of the administrative provisions in proposed section 46.1. So I would agree completely with what you have said.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I will continue on the same theme.

When the CRTC came to meet us, I understood that its understanding of its present mandate and its request for broader powers on the domestic market were precisely in the public interest and in the consumers' interest.

• 1555

For instance, the numbering system aimed precisely to protect the interests of consumers. Moreover, a consumers' fund is being considered for the future for those living in rural regions so as to ensure equal access for all. So these conclusions were partly based on considerations of consumers' interests.

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: I would agree with everything you said, except it wasn't just for consumers.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: No, I understand that.

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: Those same powers also allow for the more efficient operation of the competitive marketplace.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes, but the consumer interest and the public interest were factors that led to this conclusion—

Mr. Larry Shaw: That's very much so.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: —and to the wish of the CRTC, regardless of Teleglobe and the GATT, to have the extended powers that are described in Bill C-17.

Mr. Larry Shaw: That's correct.

The Chair: We now have the amendments before us, I believe. Does everyone have a copy before them? I'm assuming that it's available in both official languages.

Mr. Larry Shaw: You should have two sets, one set in English and one set in French.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: The present text of the first clause includes resellers.

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: That's correct.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I propose that, because this bill perhaps is not as lengthy as those that have been before us, we'll proceed clause by clause, beginning with clause 1.

(On clause 1)

The Chair: I understand there is an amendment before us for clause 1.

Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Chair, I wonder if that amendment has actually been distributed. Does everybody have it?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Just so I understand the process and the expectations here, what's the normative routine at this point?

The Chair: We need you to move the amendment so we can discuss it.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Okay, good. I can do that.

If everyone has it in front of them, I move that the committee adopt the following as a new subclause 1(2) of Bill C-17: that clause 1, proposed subsection 2(1), is further amended by adding the following words to the definition of “Canadian carrier”: “and this includes a partnership of Canadian carriers”.

Any questions?

The Chair: Is there any discussion?

Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I understand what the intention is here. Where I have some concern is, is this a valid amendment to what we have in front of us? Not having heard all sides on an issue like this, I'm a little bit hesitant, and I'd like to have some dialogue from the witnesses or our legal person.

The Chair: Just before I turn to the witnesses, because we've had discussions about what's in order and what's not in order, I'd like to clarify for the committee that the section before us that this definition would fall under in the main act is before us as a section. Provided that we're not substantively changing other parts of the act that are not before us by this amendment, it would be in order.

I guess that's a question the officials would have to answer for us.

Mr. Larry Shaw: I'll ask Millie Nickason to respond to that.

• 1600

Ms. Millie Nickason (Counsel, Industry Canada, Legal Services, Department of Justice): By changing the definition of “Canadian carrier” and adding “a partnership of Canadian carriers”, we would in fact be changing substantively a number of other changes in the Telecommunications Act.

Unfortunately, we haven't had the opportunity to review the act in the context of this proposed amendment. We aren't able to tell you what the impacts would be in term of the operations of the act and the impacts on those kinds of partnerships.

The Chair: With all due respect then, Mr. Lowther, I must rule this motion out of order.

Mr. Eric Lowther: For another day.

The Chair: Another day, another debate.

That answered the question on what's substantive.

(Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3)

The Chair: There are several amendments regarding clause 3.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: If I may, Madam Chair, before we get into all of these, I had some brief discussion with Mr. Lowther about the the fact that these were coming forward. We've taken everything that has been brought to this committee and reviewed them, even Mr. Lowther's amendment, brought forward yesterday. There was an area that I was concerned still had loophole in it; it could be more than international. The amendments that should be in front of you close everything to make sure that what we have in front of us pertains to the international scene and international communications services.

It would in effect do what was the intention earlier, maybe not in agreement with Ms. Lalonde from our previous discussion, but if Mr. Lowther would have any questions we would be able to answer him that we've closed all...and I want to confirm that it pertains to international items only.

Mr. Larry Shaw: That's correct. The amendments restrict the licensing to international service providers and further restrict the licence conditions to pertain directly to the international services. So it's a twofold change.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther, do you have any comments?

Mr. Eric Lowther: The only comment I have is that I concur with what Mr. Lastewka is saying. We're going to support these amendments.

The only outstanding issue I have personally, as I think some folks who have been here have had, is that I still have a question in my own mind—and I don't know where this is going to go in reading and in final reading in the House—about the need even for licensing at an international level. That still concerns me. We've heard many testimonies that question the whole need for that.

So that's still a question, but all things considered, with the testimonies we've heard, I think this is probably the middle ground we're going to have to settle on.

The Chair: Madam Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I will oppose that. I think that this is clear after the numerous questions that I have already put. It seems to me reckless to deprive the Commission of a power which would be different. In spite of the arguments that I have heard regarding licensing power, in an environment which might go through turbulence, we should be able to set basic conditions and determine who can or cannot be a player on the market. This would allow consumers to intervene, or to urge the Commission to intervene. I will not support this amendment. You can see the irony involved if I were to defend the original position.

[English]

The Chair: Even though I know you're going to disagree with the amendment, there are actually eight amendments Mr. Lastewka would like to propose for clause 3.

If the committee would agree—and I would need unanimous consent—Mr. Lastewka could propose all eight amendments. We could discuss all eight amendments at the same time and vote on all eight amendments.

Do I have unanimous consent?

• 1605

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Basically, all the amendments correct the writing to include “international” at every step of the way.

The Chair: Do I have unanimous consent for Mr. Lastewka?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Wait a moment, please. This concerns clause 3.

[English]

The Chair: No, there are eight amendments to clause 3, and what I'm suggesting is if we had unanimous consent Mr. Lastewka could move all eight at the same time. Then we could discuss all eight, instead of moving them all separately and then discussing them separately. It's all dealing with the same clause. But I need unanimous consent to allow Mr. Lastewka to do that.

Madam Lalonde, do I have unanimous consent?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes, it's alright.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka, on clause 3, are you moving the amendments?

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Madam Chair, I move the amendments to clause 3 in total. I did want to hear Ms. Lalonde's one clause objection.

The Chair: Now there is discussion. Madam Lalonde, you had a concern about one of the amendments to clause 3, or several.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I checked this; it was clause 46.3.

[English]

The Chair: That's clause 6. We're not there yet.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes, that's right. So it is alright.

[English]

(Amendments agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Perhaps I should have put my question earlier, but nowhere are the basic telecommunications service providers defined. To my knowledge, this is the first time that this notion has ever appeared in the Telecommunications Act. Should we not give a definition of it?

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: As Mr. Colville said this morning, the definition of basic telecommunications services changes over time. Therefore the definition of who would be captured as a provider of basic telecommunications services could also change over time. Any definition would tend to make that static and doesn't really reflect the changes in the industry we know are going to happen. So it's—

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: As far as I know, up to now, this expression has never been used anywhere. If from now on the Act stipulates "the person who provides basic telecommunications services", how will we be able to apply the Act if its meaning is not defined anywhere? I think that this is contrary to elementary justice.

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: “Telecommunications service provider” is used in the bill with the universal service fund concept, so there is support for local telecommunications services. It leaves it to the commission to determine who should participate in paying for the support of local telephone service.

Madam Nickason would like to add to that.

The Chair: Sure.

Ms. Millie Nickason: Even though the Telecommunications Act does not include a definition of “basic telecommunications services”, the term has been defined and is used in a number of different forums. It is defined in the GATS agreement; in the fourth protocol to the GATS. It is also defined in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The definition Mr. Denton referred you to earlier today he drew from the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement. At that time it was agreed that the terms “enhanced telecommunications services” and “basic telecommunications services” would be left as defined by the domestic regulators. At the time when that took place, the CRTC had defined “basic telecommunications services” and “enhanced telecommunications services” in a decision in 1984. That definition is very largely reflected in the definitions in the North American Free Trade Agreement and in the GATS' fourth protocol. There have been minor adjustments to the wording, but not substantively, and what has adapted and adjusted over that period of time is what particular services are included and considered to be basic telecommunications services. But as a generic category of services, basic services are largely carriage of information without any interference or modification of the content so that it goes from the sender to the receiver essentially in real time.

• 1610

Enhanced telecommunications services are those services that engage a type of computer application that allows either the storage and retrieval of the information or some sort of change to the format or the content.

So there is a relatively well-understood definition, and what changes over time is what's in and what's not in.

The Chair: Does that suffice, Madam Lalonde?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I regret that we only got this information at the clause-by-clause stage of our review. In any case, I for one, have not had the time to look at it. Thank you.

[English]

(Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to)

(On clause 6)

The Chair: The next amendments we have before us are on clause 6. Again, with unanimous consent, if Mr. Lastewka would move all four amendments and then we could discuss them.... I know you have a number of questions, Madam Lalonde and Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: So moved, Madam Chair—

The Chair: But I need unanimous consent. Is that all right? Yes.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'd first like to see what this entails.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

I've been advised by one of the clerks that it would be better to proceed one by one because they are very detailed. They're different. We won't do that. I apologize.

Mr. Lastewka, please move the first amendment to clause 6.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: So moved, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Do you have any comments, Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Basically, we heard a lot about proposed section 46.1, especially paragraph (b), and we had discussion earlier today on how the commission still needs to be able to make sure that in regard to the system of telecommunications, from the international to the domestic, from time to time things had to be corrected, as was determined on the databases—protection of 911, and so forth.

I'm seeing this for the first time too. I'm trying to make sure my notes match up with the amendment.

The objective here was to give some latitude to the commission so they could do their work but also limit it from going too far out of bounds.

I'll pass for further discussion.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Earlier today we had a version of 46.1, which we were looking at, that this has been expanded from. The earlier version dealt simply with, I believe, systems and databases.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Eric Lowther: This version seems to be much more extensive than that. The earlier version I was more comfortable with. When I look at the current bill and I look at these changes, I don't see any real substantive changes. This still gives the commission the power over databases, information, administrative, or operational systems, and in all aspects of telecommunications services by Canadian carriers. We've changed the words around here, but I think we really haven't changed much as far as limiting the open-endedness and the blank cheque that we were so concerned about and about which we've heard so many of our presenters express concern here.

• 1615

The Chair: Mr. Lowther you should be aware that the original proposed paragraph 46.1(1)(b) was by order in council. This is completely different, so maybe we could have the officials explain what is before us now.

Mr. Larry Shaw: In the testimony that came before this committee there was very strong support from all parties regarding the ability of the CRTC to administer numbering and delegate that administration to a third party. That was proposed paragraph 46.1(1)(a)

The controversy dealt with proposed paragraph 46.1(1)(b), which says:

any other activities that the Governor in Council may prescribe that are related to the provision of telecommunications services by Canadian carriers.

That provision has been deleted. However, in doing the deletion the numbering has been somewhat expanded and it is now found in proposed subparagraph 46.1(1)(a)(i). It says:

(i) databases or information, administrative or operational systems

The whole qualification that was not there previously but is now found in the preamble is that the commission may only administer this if it determines that to do so would facilitate the interoperation of Canadian telecommunications networks.

As has been discussed a number of times, with the change in the competitive marketplace there are a number of activities that were previously undertaken by the telephone companies that are no longer appropriate in a competitive marketplace. The first of those is the assignment of telephone numbers. There has been quite a bit of testimony before the committee about how that has been changed and is going to a third party.

There is also the possibility in the future that as there are multiple local suppliers, there will be a strong desire to do something similar with respect to things like the 911 emergency service or the 411 directory service.

Again, Mr. Lowther, the major qualification here is, as opposed to old proposed paragraph 46.1(1)(b) that said any activities that are related to the provision of telecom services, they are very much constrained—to paraphrase—to activities that are related to the interoperability of the networks. We believe it's quite a substantial narrowing of the scope of the provision.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Could I ask for further clarification or some sort of context or example that clarifies what you mean by interoperation of a Canadian carrier?

Mr. Larry Shaw: The easiest one perhaps is the 911 emergency database. Right now that's a service provided by the telephone companies to the various municipalities. They provide to the municipalities a screen that links the telephone number from where the emergency is being called with the description of the property connected with that telephone number. In a more complex environment it will probably be determined that it's better to provide that jointly.

Mr. Eric Lowther: So interoperation is basically any kind of function or information that's common to all.

Mr. Larry Shaw: That's right and where they're required to share the information or the systems.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Right. Thank you.

The Chair: Madam Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I had not understood when they said:

(a) if it determines that to do so would facilitate the interoperation of Canadian telecommunication networks.

That is more specific than the original text of the clause that seemed to say that when, for example, the CRTC designated the 911, it was not necessarily seeking to facilitate interoperation, but was taking into account other reasons, including validation, fair competition and public interest. So if the scope of this provision is only to facilitate interoperation, you're really limiting the clause that was there.

• 1620

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: Madame Lalonde, there is no doubt that this is narrower in scope than what was originally proposed. However, what is here is what we were originally trying to cover. In other words, the commission and ourselves are completely in agreement that the activities that we want to cover are those related to the interoperability. It wasn't an error in terms of the activities that the commission felt it needed to be able to administer. It was an error in that the language was broader than it needed to be to cover those activities.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You recommend striking the reference to the Governor-in-Council. Am I to understand that clause 46.3 will continue to apply for the purposes of paragraph 46.1(1)(b)?

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: No.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Is that the next amendment?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: No, but it is important to understand that if we are striking...

Ms. Marlene Jennings: That's the next amendment that Mr. Shepherd will move.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Striking the reference to the Governor-in-Council?

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Well, then tell me why you are striking the Governor-in-Council and at the same time removing accountability to the department? You are giving the CRTC more latitude and making it impossible to intervene politically to tell it to do one thing or another.

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: The government is not without powers to interact with the CRTC. We have both the power of direction and the power to review the decisions of the CRTC. The insertion of the governor in council in the previous draft was a reflection of the very broad nature of the drafting. It was after testimony here that we were able to come up with a way to narrow the drafting, to narrow the provision and application. We're satisfied that the second check is no longer required because of the narrowing of the possibility.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: So just to understand this, Mr. Shaw, what you're saying is that because you've narrowed it, you no longer need the check of the governor in council.

Mr. Larry Shaw: We can rely on the governor in council's normal powers.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I see.

In the earlier submission on this same section, which I have been able to locate, we were contemplating changing the one that I was actually a little more comfortable with. There was a word in there that talked about making these changes to facilitate the efficient functioning of Canadian telecommunication networks. Now we're talking about “facilitate the interoperation of Canadian telecommunication networks”. Is there any problem with adding the word “efficient” in here somewhere? I guess where I'm going with this is that I want to somewhere impart in this one that we would only do this if there was some benefit to all the players, and if it actually added some degree of efficiency, rather than saying everyone does this and asking why the CRTC doesn't take it over.

Mr. Larry Shaw: Can I just talk to my counsel?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Sure.

Mr. Larry Shaw: Mr. Lowther, I am advised that, at the time, it was considered that moving to interoperation from functioning—functioning being very broad and interoperation in this context being quite narrow—while deleting the word “efficient” was appropriate, since the interoperation narrows this down to a very specific set of activities.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Can we get some clarification on this? Maybe this is a dumb question, but I'm interested in the Internet. There are no provisions in the wording of this text that would give the commission any kind of authority for licensing the Internet or Internet providers.

• 1625

Mr. Larry Shaw: No. Arguably, before the change was made in article 3, the licensing provision, the commission could have licensed Internet providers, although, as Ms. Nickason explained, it's far from clear that an ISP, Internet service provider, would be considered a provider of basic telecommunications services. Most people would say that's an enhanced telecommunications service.

There's nothing in here that affects the licensing or the potential licensing of ISPs, either now or in the previous form.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther, does that answer your questions?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes.

The Chair: Are there any other questions pertaining to this amendment?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Madam Chair, doesn't interoperation refer to the connections between the various systems? Is it that precise?

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: No. The term—

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: What does "interoperation" mean? Is it defined?

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: The term I believe you're thinking of would be “interconnection”.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Interconnection.

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: Yes. That is very precise.

Interoperation is at a more general level and refers not only to the sorts of physical connections or the standards governing the connection...but operation by convention and by definition is a broader concept.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther, on that same point.

Mr. Eric Lowther: On a related point, we're talking about interoperation here. Let's take the case of 911 and maybe directories and the things we've heard about in the testimonies. Yet when I look at paragraph (b) of this, and even in subparagraph (a)(i), it talks about administrative or operational systems.

What are we implying here? Is that all the administration around directories or all the administration around 911 service, or could it be simply an administrative function that everybody does, like all the carriers do or all the telecommunications people do? We say that they all have a payroll function, so we're going to take that over. I am taking this to the ridiculous end of the extreme there.

Mr. Larry Shaw: If it's not related to the interoperation of the networks—in other words, if it's not something that they do in common like the 911 database—then it wouldn't apply. It's not any administrative system or any database. It's only those that are directly related to the interoperation of the systems; in other words, something that they all must do in common to provide.... 911 service is the easiest example.

Certainly payroll has nothing to do with the interoperation of the system, or billing, for that matter, has nothing to do with the interoperation of the system.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Okay. Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: The second amendment, Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I move the amendment in clause 6 to amend and delete lines 17 to 19 on page 4.

The Chair: Does everyone understand and have that amendment before them? It's to delete proposed section 46.3.

Is there any discussion on that amendment?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: This is the same discussion we were having earlier.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: The third amendment to clause 6, Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I move the amendment in proposed section 46.5 as circulated.

The Chair: Is there any discussion on 46.5 as the amendment is before us?

A voice: No discussion.

Ms. Millie Nickason: There is just one minor technical adjustment that should be made. It's a typographical error to 46.5 in (a). The reference to 46.1 refers to subsection (1). We no longer have a subsection (1), so we remove the brackets. It should read “46.1(a). The (1) is out.

• 1630

The Chairman: It does not refer to (b) as well.

Ms. Millie Nickason: No, just (a). The reference should just be to (a).

An hon. member: Just take the brackets out.

Ms. Millie Nickason: Yes.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: The last amendment for clause 6, Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I move the amendment on page 5. This is a correction to the French version. We discussed it earlier today.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 7)

Mr. Walt Lastewka: This is in relation to clause 7 on page 5, line 19. It enters the word “international” to be consistent. I so move.

The Chair: Is there any discussion on the amendment? Is any clarification necessary?

Madam Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Excuse me, Madam Chair, did someone move an amendment to clause 6 to specify "préalable, ainsi que la manière de gérer ce fonds?" Part of the text wasn't translated. It was on a sheet of paper that we received in addition to the proposed amendments. I'm sorry, it's your amendment.

[English]

The Chair: A part of clause 6, which was just passed, was not translated?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes.

The Chair: Which part?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It's your amendment to clause 6 on page 5 and it reads: "préalable, ainsi que la manière de gérer ce fonds". This amendment deals only with the French version and we did not examine it.

An hon. member: I don't understand the point you are raising.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: We didn't vote on that amendment.

[English]

The Chair: On clause 6, lines 4 and 5 in the French version, on page 5. Yes, we did. You voted in favour of it.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: No, it was the...

[English]

Mr. Larry Shaw: There is another motion pertaining to clause 6.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: There were two amendments. "Service de base" was missing; the word "basic" was not translated.

Mr. Larry Shaw: Yes.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It was an amendment on this clause. There was another one.

An hon. member: It is not translated.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It was another part that wasn't translated. Here, I have several copies.

[English]

The Chair: Which page is that on?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Page 5.

[Translation]

In English, it says:

[English]

(3) The Commission may regulate

(a) the manner in which the administrator administers the front; and

This is not translated in French.

[Translation]

It's on line 16, I'm told. I don't really know, sorry.

[English]

(On clause 6)

The Chair: Does everyone have this? It's being distributed to everyone before us now. It's just a technical correction...or is it a change?

Mr. Larry Shaw: No, it's a technical correction in the French version of the bill.

I apologize, Madame Chairman. That should have been circulated with the other....

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka, would you like to move this other amendment?

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I so move.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

• 1635

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 7)

The Chair: I have only two amendments before me for clause 7. Is that correct?

Mr. Larry Shaw: That's correct.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Lastewka, would you like to move those amendments?

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I so move, Madam Chair. The two amendments basically add the word “international”.

The Chair: Is there any discussion on the amendments?

(Amendments agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 7 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 8)

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: There are no amendments to clause 8?

[English]

The Chair: I have no amendments before me for clauses 8 through 24. If there's unanimous consent, we can pass clauses 8 through 24. Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Yes.

(Clauses 8 to 24 inclusive agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: On division.

Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage? My understanding is we've made a number of amendments, so it would be useful at report stage to have a reprint. We don't normally do this, but we should.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I want to thank everyone. It's been a very technical bill and it's been very interesting.

We are adjourned until Tuesday.