Walt Lastewka

[Privacy, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mount Royal for her question and her concern in this matter.

The Government of Canada has just released documentation and discussion papers and will be seeking input from across the country. We must ensure consumer information is confidential. There are a number of basic principles that we must maintain. Some of those basic principles include confidentiality, accountability, consent, accuracy and openness. We are starting on a consultation process in order to make this legislation happen.

[Canadian Tourism Commission, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Canadian Tourism Commission's annual report for 1996-97 entitled “Industry Led, Market Driven”.

[Canada Co-Operatives Act, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question for the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. I appreciated his input in the committee with respect to the importance of co-ops. He helped us to understand co-ops.

I want to ensure that although we are opening up the boundaries in which co-ops can participate, we will still maintain the principles of the co-ops as he has many times described them to me.

[Canada Co-Operatives Act, December 9th, 1997]

My colleague says “Especially the NDP”. I am glad he is with us.

This support was continued in committee. I thank members of the Standing Committee on Industry for their work in preparing the bill for third reading.

The bill has three overall objectives. The first is to revitalize corporate governance rules in relation to co-operatives. It does this by providing access to modern corporate tools that other businesses already have through framework legislation such as the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Bank Act or the Co-operative Credit Associations Act which governs financial co-ops.

Bill C-5 enables co-operatives to incorporate as a right. This eliminates ministerial discretion as well as the current complex procedures that now govern incorporation of co-ops. It reduces the cost of incorporation for both co-operatives and the government. It places co-operatives and business corporations on the same level playing field.

The bill gives co-operatives the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person similar to what business corporations now have. Co-operatives no longer have to specify their fundamental purpose in their articles or to abide by the limited list of powers set out in the current act. This helps co-operatives compete fairly. It simplifies incorporation procedures and clarifies the boundaries within which a co-operative may act.

The bill before us also changes the rules concerning the nomination and the election of directors as well as the duties and liabilities of those directors. For example, the existing act requires a fixed number of directors and specifies there may be no less than three. Bill C-5 gives co-operatives the right to establish the number of directors in their articles although it still specifies there may be no less than three.

The current act requires that a director must be a member of the co-operative. The bill requires that two-thirds of directors must be representatives of the members. This allows more flexibility by the co-operatives to make their own decisions within boundaries.

In today's competitive economy it is important for co-operatives to recruit the best possible people, to serve directors and to help guide co-operatives. These changes were requested by the co-operative sector to help it attract the expertise it required to the board of directors.

Bill C-5 makes the statutory duties and the fiduciary duties of directors of co-operatives consistent with the statutory duties of directors found in other corporate legislation. It provides a due diligence defence for directors in situations where they may be personally liable.

The second overall objective of the bill is to provide co-operatives with new financing opportunities, something the co-operatives were restricted in, in the past.

The co-operatives will be able to compete in capital markets with entities that already have access to equity investment. Under the bill membership shares can be issued with or without par value. This is a change from the existing act where membership shares can only be issued at par.

The bill allows flexibility so co-operatives can choose to maintain traditional co-operative practices such as par value membership shares or to realize a gain through no par value membership shares. This allows the flexibility for co-operatives to decide how they want to operate within the boundaries.

Bill C-5 gives co-ops the ability to issue investment shares to the public. Investment shareholders are given rights and protections similar to those provided under the Canada Business Corporations Act. This gives co-operatives the flexibility they need to raise capital and puts them on a level playing field with other business entities.

For example, although incorporated in the province of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is now listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. I remind the House that SaskPool shares have been available for over a year now. The equity investment the wheat pool has acquired in capital markets has enabled it to embark on a very aggressive and visionary expansion plan.

A third overall objective of Bill C-5 is to strengthen the features that define and distinguish co-operatives. We do not seek to change the principles that have provided the foundation for the co-op movement in Canada. Rather we want to protect the differences between co-ops and business corporations.

Under Bill C-5 co-operatives must satisfy the test of being organized, operated and administered on a co-operative basis before they can incorporate. This incorporation test protects the uniqueness of the co-operative enterprise in Canada.

One of the most fundamental principles of a co-op is that its members control its decisions. Under the bill before us members continue to make the bylaws as they do in the current act. This is different from the Canada Business Corporations Act where directors make the bylaws.

Members have considerable power to restrict the power of directors. They have remedies in cases of acts of corporate oppression and a right of dissent in the face of fundamental changes to the structure of the co-operative. Members have rights to call special meetings and they have rights to make proposals at the meetings.

Let me summarize by saying that three objectives guide the bill before us. First, we want to revitalize corporate governance rules. Second, we want to provide access to new ways for co-ops to raise financing. Third, we want to do all this without compromising the principles of co-operatives. Indeed we want to strengthen their distinctive features.

Bill C-5 strikes a balance among all three of these objectives. It was originally designed by the co-op sector. It has seen a number of improvements, both in consultation with other stakeholders and in committee.

The co-operation of members of the standing committee in terms of hearing from stakeholders, especially stakeholders who helped in designing the bill, and of helping us to proceed with the bill in committee is very important. It preserves the intent and the fundamental foundation of co-ops, yet allows them to participate in the marketplace on a level playing field.

The bill deserves the support of the House. I hope this afternoon we will continue to debate Bill C-5 and to support it to completion.

[Canada Co-Operatives Act, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to third reading of Bill C-5, respecting the Canada Co-operatives Act.

The House will recall that second reading debate was on the principles of the bill. I use the term debate very loosely because, as it turned out, every party had something good to say about Bill C-5 and it won the support of both sides of the House.

[Division No. 64, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-17 has had a lot of debate in committee.

Telecommunications are the nerve impulses of the global economy in the emerging information society. Information of all sorts from all areas span the globe in a matter of seconds.

Changes in communications over the last number of years have been very rapid. No nation can survive without it. No nation can hope to compete in the global economy without the most up to date telecommunications systems.

The telecommunications sector is vital to the Canadian economy. It is the key to our international competitiveness and an important source of high quality jobs.

Not only did employment in telecommunications increase 15% between 1994-95 but the sector also generated revenues of some $22 billion. The sector accounts for over 145,000 high quality jobs and 3.4% of the GDP. It will be our key growth sector in the economy of the next century.

Much of that growth is due to the liberalization in domestic telecommunications that began some 13 years ago and has already greatly benefited Canadians and Canadian telecommunications companies.

The liberalization began with the licensing of competitive cellular telephone service in 1984. It moved forward with the privatization of Teleglobe in 1987 and Telesat in 1992. It advanced again with the introduction of long distance competition in 1992 and the passage of the new Telecommunications Act in 1993.

In a little over a decade, Canada has moved from a highly regulated telecommunications environment to one where competition can flourish.

Over the past three and a half years this government has continued to remove barriers to competition within Canada, modernizing the legislative framework that governs information and communication technologies.

This liberalization can serve as a model for countries that have yet to make the transition from monopoly to competition based services. It has equipped Canada with one of the world's most competitive policy frameworks as well as an independent telecommunications regulator.

It has also stimulated the development of new products and services, more consumer choice, increased economic growth and job creation, considering the licensing of new wireless services, personal communications services in 1995 and local multipoint communications services in 1996.

We saw a launch of Canada's first local multipoint communications systems site just last spring. LMCS is a wireless broad band system capable of carrying basic and advanced communications services.

It will enable Canadians to take full advantage of the information highway and offers a wide array of multimedia services. It will soon provide Canadian consumers with a competitive alternative to existing cable and telephone services.

The companies providing LMCS expect to invest over $1 billion and create 8,000 jobs within the next five years. Few would argue that the liberalization of basic telecommunications services has benefited Canadians but Canada is not the only nation moving to liberalize its telecommunications industry.

In fact, we are part of a world-wide trend. The bill now before the House extends the liberalization begun in our domestic telecommunications industry to the international arena. It clears the way for the implementation of an agreement that Canada concluded last February, the GATS agreement on basic telecommunications.

Many of the changes can be implemented administratively. Others require legislation. The bill provides the legal framework needed to implement the changes that require legislation.

I want to acknowledge the contribution to this bill by the House Standing Committee on Industry. This process resulted in amendments which improve a good bill. I must compliment all of the participants for their forthright and direct debate on putting their points forward and assisting in moulding this bill into the bill that is before the House today.

The government consulted extensively with industry and the provinces before negotiating the agreement and numerous witnesses voiced their opinions during the committee's review. The agreement eliminates many restrictions in the international telecommunications industry, liberalizing trade and investment. It covers basic telecommunications services, which include voice and data but not broadcasting.

Under the agreement, Canada committed to eliminating monopolies in the two areas still closed to competition: overseas telephone service and fixed satellite services. The bill therefore amends the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act.

Teleglobe's monopoly will end October 1, 1998. Telesat's monopoly will end March 1, 2000. Canada also agreed to remove foreign ownership restrictions in satellite earth stations and the landing of international submarine cables. This agreement will benefit both Canadian telecommunications companies and consumers.

Telecommunications companies will benefit through greater access to important markets. For example, the agreement gives Canadian companies full access to the U.S. market in basic telecommunications services. The use of reciprocity tests by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission will be severely curtailed.

Canadian companies will be able to invest up to 100% in telecommunications firms in many foreign markets. Canadian companies will also gain new access to the markets of developing nations. Another benefit is access to the WTO dispute settlement process which provides the safeguards needed to ensure that countries live up to their commitments.

The provision of telecommunications services will be governed by clear rules and disputes between WTO members will be resolved in a timely manner through this effective and timely process.

This bill also strengthens our ability to keep pace with a rapidly changing telecommunications environment. The CRTC will ensure that international telecommunications carriers are licensed according to Canadian rules and regulations in a manner that is consistent with WTO rules so as to ensure a level playing field for all market participants.

Just as domestic liberalization of telecommunications has benefited Canadians and Canadian telecommunications companies, we can expect to see similar benefits arising from the GATS agreement. The agreement is expected eventually to result in less expensive international long distance telephone rates as competition increases in the overseas long distance market.

It will also stimulate telecommunications investment around the world, generating new opportunities for Canadian telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers. Not only will Canadian telecommunications companies be able to compete for a piece of the international telecommunications pie, but the pie will get bigger.

This will produce more jobs and economic growth for Canada and support a strong, innovative domestic telecommunications sector, one that will deliver more and better services to Canadians at lower costs.

Two areas of concern for Canada were not affected by this agreement. Canada took an explicit reservation to allow us to maintain our current overall foreign investment regulations in telecommunications. This investment regime has seen major foreign firms such as AT&T and Sprint make significant investments in Canadian firms while ensuring that they remain Canadian owned and controlled. In addition, Canada has no ownership restrictions for resellers which compares well with the current situation in Japan, Europe and the United States.

Canadian culture is also protected as the agreement does not cover broadcasting, which continues to be covered by the Broadcasting Act. One of the reasons broadcasting was excluded was to ensure the protection of Canadian culture.

The GATS agreement on basic telecommunications follows closely on the Information Technology Agreement which liberalized trade and information technology equipment. Under that agreement, 40 governments agreed to phase out all tariffs on computers, software, telecom products and semiconductors beginning July 1, 1997 and eliminate them by the year 2000. These 40 economies account for 85% of the world's annual $500 billion U.S. trade in IT products.

Information technology plays a key role in our economy. These products are the building blocks of most industrial and business processes. Canadian users of information technology products are expected to benefit as tariff barriers fall. Together these two agreements provide a springboard for economic growth and development in the next century. They cover international business worth over a trillion dollars U.S. Their combined effect will spur telecommunications investments around the world, increasing opportunities for Canadian telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers.

Not only are they good for Canadians and Canadian companies, they contribute to international development by making information products and telecommunications services more affordable. Canada's open and competitive telecommunications market has produced highly competitive Canadian companies which are well prepared to take advantage of the new business opportunities created by these agreements. This is essential for Canada's continued competitiveness and economic health because, as much as we have accomplished, other countries are challenging us.

New communications and information technologies are remaking the world around us. If we do not want Canada to be left behind, we have to prepare ourselves for the new reality. Canada has long been a world leader in providing its citizens with access to broadcasting and basic telecommunication services, such as the telephone. In fact, we have virtually universal access to these core networks and services, with safeguards to ensure that Canadians retain access to these services in a competitive environment.

The combined forces of technology and trade liberalization are opening new frontiers, creating challenges that we can barely imagine. The opportunities are there for Canada to seize, but only if we move decisively and quickly to take advantage of them.

Canada will benefit as a result of the GATS agreement. I urge the House to move on this bill which is needed to implement the agreement with all due speed. I thank my fellow colleagues for their great contribution in debate, in committee and in this House to make sure that this bill gets passed.

[Telecommunications Act, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments on the remarks made by the previous speaker. I understand the the member for St. Albert always wishes to discredit various tribunals and legislative bodies that we have in the country. However, we heard very clearly from the users, the stakeholders, the people who will be involved in reducing or eliminating the monopoly of Teleglobe Canada.

It is important to know the rules for having a level playing field. Although I understand his objective, I do not think it was relevant to the debate.

Another item is the amendment to the motion which states that in the public interest, each of the bodies or tribunals that we have set up, whether it is for telecommunications or other sectors across Canada, part of their mandate is to act in the public interest.

My concern with the amendment to the motion would be to call into question if the public interest should be held in this motion only and not in the rest of the act. As I stated earlier, each one of the administrative bodies are there to act in the public interest. My concern would be that the perception is given that the CRTC does not act in the public interest.

I do not think that the hon. member for Mercier meant that. However, it could be implied that the concern is for the public interest only in that section. Therefore, I have a great concern that the comment is made only in that section. Maybe we need to make sure and to reconfirm administrative acts and tribunals so that it is very clear that it is being done in the public interest.

I was a little unsure about the point made by the member from the Conservative Party. I think we have gone beyond the points he was trying to make. Therefore, I cannot respond.

[Telecommunications Act, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this section had a lot of debate in the Standing Committee on Industry. When we were doing some rewriting we had second thoughts, that what appeared in writing was not exactly what we meant. Following the committee we had discussions with as many of the groups as possible to make sure that we had in writing was exactly what we had agreed on in committee.

Therefore this amendment is being brought forward to reflect what we had thought the decisions were by the committee.

[Telecommunications Act, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and points that have been brought forward by the member for Mercier.

She has proposed a number of amendments to the licensing provisions basically found in clauses 3 and 7. The substance of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois are to expand the scope of licensing powers of the CRTC from international services to the wording that existed prior to the amendments and agreed to by the committee, in which the CRTC had broad authority to license both international and domestic providers.

I want to point out that we did have an extensive review of this bill at the Standing Committee on Industry. Every witness spoke on this subject during the committee review. It was the opinion of the committee and the main concerns of the parties that appeared before the committee that the licensing provision in this bill at this time be limited to international services.

We listened to a number of witnesses express their strong support for the introduction of a licensing regime for international services but express great reservation about the use of the power for domestic services. Others argued for the retention of the broad powers, such as the Bloc with its amendments here today.

As the House knows, with any knew regulatory tool there are costs and benefits. With respect to the international services there is clear evidence that such a tool is necessary. While there will be compliance costs, they are small compared to the benefits of making sure that the changes of the Teleglobe monopoly to an international competition is made properly.

We acknowledge that there would be some benefit to have licensing authority for domestic services. However, we already have a fairly well developed regulatory framework. It is not clear on the additional costs and benefits and which one outweighs the other.

We heard very clearly that in its work in telecommunications, which is an environment that changes and advances every day and an environment that we as Canadians need to be leaders in, the CRTC has been moving away from regulating everything to making sure there is competition in that arena.

We listened to all the arguments made in committee. The decision to restrict the power to international service was taken after hearing all of the parties. We believe at this time that it is the right decision. It is most important that we get on with our requirements on adhering to the various telecommunications treaties that we have signed.

I would be against this amendment. I understand very clearly the member's concerns which she has brought forward, but I advise the House that we would be against this amendment.

[Telemarketing, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, total losses from telemarketing scams are estimated to be around $4 billion.

Telemarketing scams often target vulnerable people, especially the elderly. From January to September of this year, 56% of victims were over 60 years old and 85% of these victims lost more than $5,000.

This is a very serious crime that threatens the financial security of our parents, grandparents and all Canadians. Tough new measures have just been introduced to attack these telemarketing scams. Bill C-20 will crack down on criminals by amending the misleading advertising provisions of Canada's Competition Act.

I call on my colleagues in this House to take action against telemarketing crime. I ask them to inform their constituents about programs like PhoneBusters and SeniorBusters, arm them with information to guard against these scams, and support the new crime fighting legislation before the House.